External Validation of the PediBIRN Screening Tool for Abusive Head Trauma in Pediatric Emergency Department Settings.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, secondary analysis of an existing, deidentified, prospective data set captured to derive a bruising CDR. Subjects were patients under 3 years with bruising and confirmed acute head trauma. An expert medical panel had previously identified patients with AHT. Measures of the CDR's AHT screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Expert medical panel members had classified 78 of 117 eligible patients (67%) as AHT, 38 (33%) as non-AHT, and 1 as indeterminate. Excluding the indeterminate case, the PediBIRN-4 demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99), specificity of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.16-0.46), positive likelihood ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.10-1.67), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.04-0.46). Close inspection of the data revealed that 1 of the CDR's predictor variables had lowered specificity without impacting sensitivity. Eliminating this variable would have increased specificity to 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The PediBIRN 4-variable CDR demonstrated AHT screening sensitivity in the pediatric ED equivalent to pediatric intensive care unit and other inpatient settings, but lower specificity. Further study of a simplified 3-variable PediBIRN AHT screening tool for the ED setting is warranted.

Who's Watching the Children? Caregiver Features Associated with Physical Child Abuse versus Accidental Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To compare caregiver features and caregiving arrangements of children with physical abuse vs accidental injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Data came from a prospective, observational, multicenter study investigating bruising and psychosocial characteristics of children younger than 4 years of age. Using logistic regression, we examined how abuse vs accidental injury and severity of injury were associated with caregiver sex, relation to the child, whether caregiving arrangements were different than usual at the time of injury, and length of the main caregiver's relationship with his/her partner. RESULTS: Of 1615 patients, 24% were determined to have been physically abused. Abuse was more likely when a male caregiver was present (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.38-4.62). When the male was the boyfriend of the mother (or another female caregiver), the odds of abuse were very high (OR 169.2, 95% CI 61.3-614.0). Severe or fatal injuries also were more likely when a male caregiver was present. In contrast, abuse was substantially less likely when a female caregiver was present (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17-0.37) with the exception of a female babysitter (OR 3.87, 95% CI 2.15-7.01). Caregiving arrangements that were different than usual and caregiver relationships <1 year were also associated with an increased risk of abuse. CONCLUSIONS: We identified caregiver features associated with physical abuse. In clinical practice, questions regarding caregiver features may improve recognition of the abused child. This information may also inform future abuse prevention strategies.

Classifying Injuries in Young Children as Abusive or Accidental: Reliability and Accuracy of an Expert Panel Approach.

OBJECTIVE: To assess interrater reliability and accuracy of an expert panel in classifying injuries of patients as abusive or accidental based on comprehensive case information. STUDY DESIGN: Data came from a prospective, observational, multicenter study investigating bruising characteristics of children younger than 4 years. We enrolled 2166 patients with broad ranges of illnesses and injuries presenting to one of 5 pediatric emergency departments in whom bruises were identified during examination. We collected comprehensive data regarding current and past injuries and illnesses, and provided deidentified, standardized case information to a 9-member multidisciplinary panel of experts with extensive experience in pediatric injury. Each panelist classified cases using a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from definite abuse to definite accident. Panelists also assessed whether report to child protective services (CPS) was warranted. We calculated reliability coefficients for likelihood of abuse and decision to report to CPS. RESULTS: The interrater reliability of the panelists was high. The Kendall coefficient (95% CI) for the likelihood of abuse was 0.89 (0.87, 0.91) and the kappa coefficient for the decision to report to CPS was 0.91 (0.87, 0.94). Reliability of pairs and subgroups of panelists were similarly high. A panel composite classification was nearly perfectly accurate in a subset of cases having definitive, corroborated injury status. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts with different backgrounds but common expertise in pediatric injury is a reliable and accurate criterion standard for classifying pediatric injuries as abusive or accidental in a sample of children presenting to a pediatric emergency department.