Identifying Predictors of Physical Abuse Evaluation of Injured Infants: Opportunities to Improve Recognition.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of physical abuse evaluation in infants younger than 6 months with visible injury and to determine the prevalence of occult fracture and intracranial hemorrhage in those evaluated. METHODS: Infants 6.0 months or younger who presented with visible injury to a pediatric hospital-affiliated emergency department or urgent care between July 2013 and January 2017 were included. Potential predictors included sociodemographics, treatment site, provider, injury characteristics, and history. Outcome variables included completion of a radiographic skeletal survey and identification of fracture (suspected or occult) and intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: Visible injury was identified in 378 infants, 47% of whom did not receive a skeletal survey. Of those with bruising, burns, or intraoral injuries, skeletal survey was less likely in patients 3 months or older, of black race, presenting to an urgent care or satellite location, evaluated by a non-pediatric emergency medicine-trained physician or nurse practitioner, or with a burn. Of these, 25% had an occult fracture, and 24% had intracranial hemorrhage. Occult fractures were also found in infants with apparently isolated abrasion/laceration (14%), subconjunctival hemorrhage (33%), and scalp hematoma/swelling (13%). CONCLUSIONS: About half of preambulatory infants with visible injury were not evaluated for physical abuse. Targeted education is recommended as provider experience and training influenced the likelihood of physical abuse evaluation. Occult fractures and intracranial hemorrhage were often found in infants presenting with seemingly isolated "minor" injuries. Physical abuse should be considered when any injury is identified in an infant younger than 6 months.

Diagnostic accuracy in child sexual abuse medical evaluation: role of experience, training, and expert case review.

OBJECTIVES: (1) The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of clinicians who examine children for suspected sexual abuse to recognize and interpret normal and abnormal ano-genital findings in magnified photographs using an online survey format. (2) Determine which factors in education, clinical practice, and case review correlate with correct responses to the survey questions. METHODS: Between July and December 2007, medical professionals participated in a web-based survey. Participants answered questions regarding their professional background, education, clinical experience, and participation in case review. After viewing photographs and clinical information from 20 cases, participants answered 41 questions regarding diagnosis and medical knowledge. Answers chosen by an expert panel were used as the correct answers for the survey. RESULTS: The mean number of correct answers among the 141 first-time survey respondents was 31.6 (SD 5.9, range 15-41). Child Abuse Pediatricians (CAP) had mean total scores which were significantly higher than Pediatricians (Ped) (34.8 vs. 30.1, p<0.05) and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANE) (34.8 vs. 29.3, p<0.05). The mean total scores for Ped, SANE, and Advanced Practice Nurses (APN) who examine fewer than 5 children monthly for possible CSA were all below 30. Total score was directly correlated with the number of examinations performed monthly (p=0.003). In multivariable regression analysis, higher total score was associated with self-identification as a CAP, reading The Quarterly Update newsletter (p<0.0001), and with quarterly or more frequent expert case reviews using photo-documentation (p=0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Child Abuse Pediatricians, examiners who perform many CSA examinations on a regular basis, examiners who regularly review cases with an expert, and examiners who keep up to date with current research have higher total scores in this survey, suggesting greater knowledge and competence in interpreting medical and laboratory findings in children with CSA. Review of cases with an expert in CSA medical evaluation and staying up to date with the CSA literature are encouraged for non-specialist clinicians who examine fewer than 5 children monthly for suspected sexual abuse.

Variability in expert assessments of child physical abuse likelihood.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a gold standard, clinicians and researchers often categorize their opinions of the likelihood of inflicted injury using several ordinal scales. The objective of this protocol was to determine the reliability of expert ratings using several of these scales. METHODS: Participants were pediatricians with substantial academic and clinical activity in the evaluation of children with concerns for physical abuse. The facts from several cases that were referred to 1 hospital's child abuse team were abstracted and recorded as in a multidisciplinary team conference. Participants viewed the recording and rated each case using several scales of child abuse likelihood. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) showed broad variability for most cases on all scales. Variability was lowest for cases with the highest aggregate concern for abuse. One scale that included examples of cases fitting each category and standard reporting language to summarize results showed a modest (18%-23%) decrease in variability among participants. The interpretation of the categories used by the scales was more consistent. Cases were rarely rated as "definite abuse" when likelihood was estimated at < or = 95%. Only 7 of 156 cases rated < or = 15% likelihood were rated as "no reasonable concern for abuse." Only 9 of 858 cases rated > or = 35% likelihood were rated as "reasonable concern for abuse." CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of child abuse likelihood often show broad variability between experts. Although a rating scale with patient examples and standard reporting language may decrease variability, clinicians and researchers should be cautious when interpreting abuse likelihood assessments from a single expert. These data support the peer-review or multidisciplinary team approach to child abuse assessments.

Sexually transmitted diseases in sexually abused girls and adolescents.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The clinical evaluation for suspected child sexual abuse often includes sexually transmitted disease testing. In spite of the high prevalence of sexual abuse, however, most abused children will not have a sexually transmitted disease identified. The low prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in this population requires special care by the clinician to exclude false-positive test results and to provide appropriate guidance to child protection workers. RECENT FINDINGS: The likelihood of sexual transmission varies for specific infectious agents and the transmission of infectious agents such as human papillomavirus is complex. Concern about the low positive predictive value of many tests for sexually transmitted diseases in this population is again being demonstrated and clinicians are asked to be cautious in interpreting test results. SUMMARY: Clinicians are mandated reporters of suspected child abuse. Treatment of sexually transmitted diseases may need to be delayed pending confirmatory testing of the initial results. HIV postexposure prophylaxis should be considered within hours of the exposure.