Interdisciplinary collaboration needed in obtaining high-quality medical information in child abuse investigations.

BACKGROUND: Despite reporting legislation, healthcare providers (HCPs) do not always report and collaborate in cases of suspected child abuse. Recognizing this leaves children at risk, the Wisconsin Child Abuse Network (WI CAN) sought to understand barriers to mandated reporting and collaboration with child abuse investigators. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate barriers for professionals in providing and obtaining high-quality medical information in child abuse investigations. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants included five discipline-specific focus groups: HCPs, child protective services (CPS), law enforcement, lawyers, and judges. All professionals had been directly involved in Wisconsin child abuse cases. METHODS: This qualitative study consisted of discipline-specific focus groups, directed by open-ended interview questions. Data analysis was completed through the narrative inquiry methodology. RESULTS: Barriers to providing and obtaining high-quality medical information in child abuse investigations were both discipline-specific and universal amongst all groups. Discipline-specific barriers included: HCPs' discomfort with uncertainty; CPS' perception of disrespect and mistrust by HCPs; law enforcement's concerns with HCPs' overstepping professional boundaries; lawyers' concern of HCPs' discomfort with court proceedings; and judges' perception of a lack of understanding between all disciplines. Universal barriers included: value of high-quality medical information in child abuse investigations, burden of time and money; unequal resources between counties; a need for protocols, and a need for interdisciplinary collaboration. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest several ways to address identified barriers. Possible interventions include equalizing resources between urban and rural counties (specifically financial resources and access to child abuse experts); protocolizing reporting and investigations; and, increasing interprofessional education.

Impact of simulation-based training on perceived provider confidence in acute multidisciplinary pediatric trauma resuscitation.

PURPOSE: Simulation-based training has the potential to improve team-based care. We hypothesized that implementation of an in situ multidisciplinary simulation-based training program would improve provider confidence in team-based management of severely injured pediatric trauma patients. METHODS: An in situ multidisciplinary pediatric trauma simulation-based training program with structured debriefing was implemented at a free-standing children's hospital. Trauma providers were anonymously surveyed 1 month before (pre-), 1 month after (post-), and 2 years after implementation. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 49% (n = 93/190) pre-simulation, 22% (n = 42/190) post-simulation, and 79% (n = 150/190) at 2-year follow-up. These providers reported more anxiety (p = 0.01) and less confidence (p = 0.02) 1-month post-simulation. At 2-year follow-up, trained providers reported less anxiety (p = 0.02) and greater confidence (p = 0.01), compared to untrained providers. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an in situ multidisciplinary pediatric trauma simulation-based training program may initially lead to increased anxiety, but long-term exposure may lead to greater confidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Prospective cohort.

Self-assessment of team performance using T-NOTECHS in simulated pediatric trauma resuscitation is not consistent with expert assessment.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma NOn-TECHnical Skills (T-NOTECHS) tool has been used to assess teamwork in trauma resuscitation, but its reliability and validity for self-assessment is unknown. Our purpose was to determine the reliability and validity of self-administered T-NOTECHS in pediatric trauma resuscitation. METHODS: Simulated in situ resuscitations were evaluated using T-NOTECHS in real time by experts and immediately afterwards by team members. Reliability was analyzed with linear-weighted kappa and intra-class correlation. T-NOTECHS scores were compared between expert (gold-standard) and self-assessment. RESULTS: Fifteen simulations were examined. T-NOTECHS scores were similar between self- and expert assessment for leadership. Self-assessment scores were higher than expert for the other domains and total composite score. Inter-rater reliability for total score was similar between the two groups, but differences were observed in the domains. CONCLUSIONS: Self-assessment is not interchangeable with expert rating when using T-NOTECHS. Future studies need to determine how self-assessment can be best utilized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Studies of diagnostic accuracy - Level 2.