Early Diagnosis of Abusive Head Trauma to Avoid Repetitive Shaking Events

Prosecuting cases of abusive head trauma in Switzerland: a descriptive study of the impact of medical documentation and delay of reporting on judicial outcome

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is a criminal offence that is prosecuted ex officio, following report to the police from physicians or child protection services. The aim of this study was to assess whether the judicial outcome (dismissal vs indictment) was influenced by the quality of the medical documentation and/or the time span between AHT diagnosis and reporting child abuse to the police. The cohort was divided in two groups: 13/23 dismissals (57%) and 10/23 indictments (43%). The diagnostic probability of the AHT cases was certain for both groups. Nonetheless, in fraction of dismissed cases, alternative explanations for the observed lesions seemed plausible to the public prosecutor. Legal files of only 3/12 dismissed cases had a forensic report, while 6/10 cases that were indicted included a forensic report. Further, the legal file of several dismissed cases entirely lacked medical documentation (3/12), which was not the cases for indicted cases. The period between AHT diagnosis and reporting to the police was not different for dismissals (29 ± 19 days) and indictments (7 ± 4 days) (p = 0.32). Physicians filed reports more rapidly (6 ± 1 days) compared to childhood protection service (70 ± 46 days) (p = 0.01) and that may increase the rate of indictments (9/18) compared to reporting via the childhood protection service (1/5). Despite diagnostic certainty, other causes for the lesions were considered as plausible alternative explanations to judicial professionals in several dismissed cases. These seemed to have less medical documentation and forensic evaluations. In addition, more rapid reporting to the police by physicians seems to increase the likelihood of indictments.

Abusive head trauma: The body of the iceberg - A population-based survey on prevalence and perpetrators

BACKGROUND

Research on abusive head trauma (AHT) is usually research on clinically identified cases, while population-based studies, having the potential to identify cases of shaking that did not end with hospital admission, are missing to date.

OBJECTIVE

Thus, we aimed to assess the prevalence of AHT and associated risk factors in a representative sample of the German population.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study in Germany from July to October 2021. Using different sampling steps including a random route procedure, a probability sample of the German population was generated. The final sample consisted of 2503 persons (50.2 % female, mean age: 49.5 years).

METHODS

Participants were asked about sociodemographic information in a face-to-face interview and whether they had been ever responsible for the care of an infant and whether they had ever performed potential harmful methods including shaking to calm it, intimate partner violence (IPV) and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 1.4 % of women (N = 18) and 1.1 % of men (N = 13) reported to have at least once shaken an infant to calm it. Ever having used a potential harmful parenting method in calming an infant was reported by 4.9 % of women (N = 61) and 3.1 % (N = 39) of men. No gender differences were seen. A low income, living with someone under 16 in the household and victimization and perpetration of IPV and ACEs are associated with increased risks of shaking and other potential harmful methods to calm an infant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that despite better knowledge on the dangers of shaking, the percentage of women that shake infants might be higher than previously thought. Also, intimate partner violence and ACEs are key risk factor for shaking and harmful parenting behaviors in general. This has important implications for future prevention programs.

Mild abusive head injury: diagnosis and pitfalls

Clinicians often miss making the diagnosis of abusive head injury in infants and toddlers who present with mild, non-specific symptoms such as vomiting, fussiness, irritability, trouble sleeping and eating, and seizure. If abusive head injury is missed, the child is likely to go on to experience more severe injury. An extensive review of the medical literature was done to summarize what is known about missed abusive head injury and about how these injuries can be recognized and appropriately evaluated. The following issues will be addressed: the definition of mild head injury, problems encountered when clinicians evaluated mildly ill young children with non-specific symptoms, the risk of missing the diagnosis of mild abusive head trauma, the risks involved in subjecting infants and young children to radiation and/or sedation required for neuroimaging studies, imaging options for suspected neurotrauma in children, clinical prediction rules for evaluating mild head injury in children, laboratory tests than can be helpful in diagnosing mild abusive head injury, history and physical examination when diagnosing or ruling out mild abusive head injury, social and family factors that could be associated with abusive injuries, and interventions that could improve our recognition of mild abusive head injuries. Relevant literature is described and evaluated. The conclusion is that abusive head trauma remains a difficult diagnosis to identify in mildly symptomatic young children.