[Screening for child abuse: what does it achieve?] / Screening op kindermishandeling: wat levert het op?

In the Netherlands, child abuse is a national problem and often not recognized in medical settings. As a consequence, it has become mandatory to use a screening instrument for child abuse at emergency departments and out-of-hours primary care services. Since the revised Reporting Code has come into force, there is renewed interest for a national approach on screening for child abuse. The question is how valid existing screening instruments are and how they help the medical professional to suspect child abuse. In this article, we elaborate on the value of available screening instruments and their consequences for daily practice. Because of the limited validity of available screening instruments, we recommend replacing them with a simple reminder to increase awareness of child abuse. A nationwide approach to child abuse in the medical setting should be implemented, with mandatory training on child abuse as its cornerstone.

The Value of a Checklist for Child Abuse in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: To Screen or Not to Screen.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic value of the screening instrument SPUTOVAMO-R2 (checklist, 5 questions) for child abuse at Out-of-hours Primary Care locations (OPC), by comparing the test outcome with information from Child Protection Services (CPS). Secondary, to determine whether reducing the length of the checklist compromises diagnostic value. METHODS: All children (<18 years) attending one of the participating OPCs in the region of Utrecht, the Netherlands, in a year time, were included. The checklist is an obligatory field in the electronic patient file. CPS provided data on all checklist positives and a sample of 5500 checklist negatives (dataset). The checklist outcome was compared with a report to CPS in 10 months follow up after the OPC visit. RESULTS: The checklist was filled in for 50671 children; 108 (0.2%) checklists were positive. Within the dataset, 61 children were reported to CPS, with emotional neglect as the most frequent type of abuse (32.8%). The positive predictive value (PPV) of the checklist for child abuse was 8.3 (95% CI 3.9-15.2). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1 (98.8-99.3), with 52 false negatives. When the length of the checklist was reduced to two questions closely related to the medical process (SPUTOVAMO-R3), the PPV was 9.1 (3.7-17.8) and the NPV 99.1 (98.7-99.3). These two questions are on the injury in relation to the history, and the interaction between child and parents. CONCLUSIONS: The checklist SPUTOVAMO-R2 has a low detection rate of child abuse within the OPC setting, and a high false positive rate. Therefore, we recommend to use the shortened checklist only as a tool to increase the awareness of child abuse and not as a diagnostic instrument.

A screening protocol for child abuse at out-of-hours primary care locations: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Child abuse is often unrecognized at out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) services. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of the screening instrument SPUTOVAMO-R2 for child abuse (checklist), followed by a structured approach (reporting code), at OOH-PC services. The reporting code with five steps should ensure consistent action in case of a suspicion. METHODS: All children attending one of the five participating OOH-PC services in the region of Utrecht, the Netherlands, in a year time, were included. The checklist is an obligatory field in the electronic patient file and was filled in for all children. In case of a positive checklist, the steps in the reporting code were followed. Additionally, the case was evaluated in a multidisciplinary team to determine the probability of child abuse. RESULTS: The checklist was filled in for 50671 children; 108 (0.2 %) were positive. The multidisciplinary team diagnosed child abuse in 24 (22 %) of the 108 positive checklists, and no child abuse in 36 (33 %). Emotional neglect was the most frequent type of abuse diagnosed. For all abused children, care was implemented according to the protocol. The most frequent care given was a referral to the hospital (N = 7) or contact with child's own general practitioner (N = 6). CONCLUSION: A checklist followed by a reporting code guarantees consistent actions and care for children with a suspicion of child abuse. The percentage of positive checklists is lower than expected. Validity of the checklist should be assessed in a diagnostic study.