Exploring the acceptability of a clinical decision rule to identify paediatric burns due to child abuse or neglect

The impact of a clinical prediction tool (BuRN-Tool) for child maltreatment on social care outcomes for children attending hospital with a burn or scald injury

Burns are common childhood injuries and 10-20% are associated with maltreatment. This prospective before/after study investigated the impact of introducing the BuRN-Tool (a child maltreatment clinical prediction tool), on actions taken by children's social care department (CSC). Before introduction (pre-intervention): we collected standardised data on cause and characteristics of burns, in four regional hospitals. A BuRN-Tool-score was calculated retrospectively pre-intervention and by the attending clinician post-intervention. CSC involvement and actions taken relative to BuRN-Tool-score were compared pre- and post-BuRN-Tool. Data were collected for 1688 children from 17 local authorities. The percentage that received a CSC action decreased post-BuRN-Tool (pre: 58.0%, 51/88; post: 37.5%, 33/88, p = 0.007). A greater percentage of cases with a BuRN-Tool-score of ≥ 3 had a CSC action, than those with a BuRN-Tool-score 3, pre-intervention (≥3 70.0%, 35/50; = 0.04) and post-intervention (≥3 50.0%, 21/42; = 0.01). Children with a BuRN-Tool-score ≥ 3 but no contact/referral recorded by CSC for the burn, and those who had a contact/referral but no action taken, were significantly more likely than those scoring 3 to have new CSC involvement within six months following the burn. The BuRN-Tool-score ≥ 3 has the potential to alert clinicians to maltreatment concerns.

Circumstances of injury in children with abusive versus non-abusive injuries

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have examined differences in the characteristics of abusive versus non-abusive injuries, no study has focused on the differences in the circumstances surrounding these injuries, such as whether the event that caused the injury was witnessed or heard, or EMS was called.

OBJECTIVE

To determine predictors related to the circumstances of the injury (COI) for distinguishing abusive versus non-abusive injuries.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

Children younger than 3-years-old who were hospitalized with either a head injury or a fracture and evaluated by the child abuse consultation service between June 1, 2008 and June 30, 2017.

METHODS

In this case-control study, abusive (cases) and non-abusive (controls) injuries were determined by a consensus of two experts blinded to the COI. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify COI predictors of abusive injuries.

RESULTS

We identified 302 children: 80 cases (26.5%) and 222 controls (73.5%). Abused children were less likely to have a clear event described (p < .001). Of the 251 with a clear event, we found that the significant variables for abuse were father's presence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.37; 95% CI 3.35-20.92), delay ≥24 h in seeking care (aOR 6.23; 95% CI 1.95-19.92) and calling EMS (aOR 3.21; 95% CI 1.10-9.36). In contrast, the event being heard (aOR 0.22; 95% CI 0.08-0.0.59) and the child being dropped (aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.77) were less likely to be abusive.

CONCLUSION

We identified five COI predictors that may help clinicians in determining whether a child's injuries are due to abuse.

Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that predict the absolute risk of a clinical condition or future outcome for individual patients are abundant in the medical literature; however, systematic reviews have demonstrated shortcomings in the methodological quality and reporting of prediction studies. To maximise the potential and clinical usefulness of CPRs, they must be rigorously developed and validated, and their impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes must be evaluated. This review aims to present a comprehensive overview of the stages involved in the development, validation and evaluation of CPRs, and to describe in detail the methodological standards required at each stage, illustrated with examples where appropriate. Important features of the study design, statistical analysis, modelling strategy, data collection, performance assessment, CPR presentation and reporting are discussed, in addition to other, often overlooked aspects such as the acceptability, cost-effectiveness and longer-term implementation of CPRs, and their comparison with clinical judgement. Although the development and evaluation of a robust, clinically useful CPR is anything but straightforward, adherence to the plethora of methodological standards, recommendations and frameworks at each stage will assist in the development of a rigorous CPR that has the potential to contribute usefully to clinical practice and decision-making and have a positive impact on patient care.

Acceptability of the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool: A qualitative study with child protection professionals

The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool estimates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) based on combinations of six clinical features: head/neck bruising; apnea; seizures; rib/long-bone fractures; retinal hemorrhages. We aimed to determine the acceptability of PredAHT to child protection professionals. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 56 participants: clinicians (25), child protection social workers (10), legal practitioners (9, including 4 judges), police officers (8), and pathologists (4), purposively sampled across southwest United Kingdom. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo for thematic analysis (38% double-coded). We explored participants' evaluations of PredAHT, their opinions about the optimal way to present the calculated probabilities, and their interpretation of probabilities in the context of suspected AHT. Clinicians, child protection social workers and police thought PredAHT would be beneficial as an objective adjunct to their professional judgment, to give them greater confidence in their decisions. Lawyers and pathologists appreciated its value for prompting multidisciplinary investigations, but were uncertain of its usefulness in court. Perceived disadvantages included: possible over-reliance and false reassurance from a low score. Interpretations regarding which percentages equate to 'low', 'medium' or 'high' likelihood of AHT varied; participants preferred a precise % probability over these general terms. Participants would use PredAHT with provisos: if they received multi-agency training to define accepted risk thresholds for consistent interpretation; with knowledge of its development; if it was accepted by colleagues. PredAHT may therefore increase professionals' confidence in their decision-making when investigating suspected AHT, but may be of less value in court.