A Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed Abusive Head Trauma in Pediatric Intensive Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of the PediBIRN (Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network) 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) on abuse evaluations and missed abusive head trauma in pediatric intensive care settings. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized trial. Participants included 8 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in US academic medical centers; PICU and child abuse physicians; and consecutive patients with acute head injures <3 years (n = 183 and n = 237, intervention vs control). PICUs were stratified by patient volumes, pair-matched, and randomized equally to intervention or control conditions. Randomization was concealed from the biostatistician. Physician-directed, cluster-level interventions included initial and booster training, access to an abusive head trauma probability calculator, and information sessions. Outcomes included "higher risk" patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse (with skeletal survey and retinal examination), potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (patients lacking either evaluation), and estimates of missed abusive head trauma (among potential cases). Group comparisons were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Intervention physicians evaluated a greater proportion of higher risk patients thoroughly (81% vs 73%, P = .11) and had fewer potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (21% vs 32%, P = .05), although estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma did not differ (7% vs 13%, P = .22). From baseline (in previous studies) to trial, the change in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly (67%→81% vs 78%→73%, P = .01), and potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (40%→21% vs 29%→32%, P = .003), diverged significantly. We did not identify a significant divergence in the number of estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma (15%→7% vs 11%→13%, P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: PediBIRN-4 CDR application facilitated changes in abuse evaluations that reduced potential cases of missed abusive head trauma in PICU settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03162354.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities and Bias in the Evaluation and Reporting of Abusive Head Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize racial and ethnic disparities in the evaluation and reporting of suspected abusive head trauma (AHT) across the 18 participating sites of the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN). We hypothesized that such disparities would be confirmed at multiple sites and occur more frequently in patients with a lower risk for AHT. STUDY DESIGN: Aggregate and site-specific analysis of the cross-sectional PediBIRN dataset, comparing AHT evaluation and reporting frequencies in subpopulations of white/non-Hispanic and minority race/ethnicity patients with lower vs higher risk for AHT. RESULTS: In the PediBIRN study sample of 500 young, acutely head-injured patients hospitalized for intensive care, minority race/ethnicity patients (n = 229) were more frequently evaluated (P < .001; aOR, 2.2) and reported (P = .001; aOR, 1.9) for suspected AHT than white/non-Hispanic patients (n = 271). These disparities occurred almost exclusively in lower risk patients, including those ultimately categorized as non-AHT (P = .001 [aOR, 2.4] and P = .003 [aOR, 2.1]) or with an estimated AHT probability of ≤25% (P <.001 [aOR, 4.1] and P <.001 [aOR, 2.8]). Similar site-specific analyses revealed that these results reflected more extreme disparities at only 2 of 18 sites, and were not explained by local confounders. CONCLUSION: Significant race/ethnicity-based disparities in AHT evaluation and reporting were observed at only 2 of 18 sites and occurred almost exclusively in lower risk patients. In the absence of local confounders, these disparities likely represent the impact of local physicians' implicit bias.

Potential Impact of a Validated Screening Tool for Pediatric Abusive Head Trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a retrospective, theoretical comparison of actual pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) screening for abusive head trauma (AHT) vs AHT screening guided by a previously validated 4-variable clinical prediction rule (CPR) in datasets used by the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network to derive and validate the CPR. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated CPR-based estimates of abuse probability for all 500 patients in the datasets. Next, we demonstrated a positive and very strong correlation between these estimates of abuse probability and the overall diagnostic yields of our patients' completed skeletal surveys and retinal examinations. Having demonstrated this correlation, we applied mean estimates of abuse probability to predict additional, positive abuse evaluations among patients lacking skeletal survey and/or retinal examination. Finally, we used these predictions of additional, positive abuse evaluations to extrapolate and compare AHT detection (and 2 other measures of AHT screening accuracy) in actual PICU screening for AHT vs AHT screening guided by the CPR. RESULTS: Our results suggest that AHT screening guided by the CPR could theoretically increase AHT detection in PICU settings from 87%-96% (P < .001), and increase the overall diagnostic yield of completed abuse evaluations from 49%-56% (P = .058), while targeting slightly fewer, though not significantly less, children for abuse evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Applied accurately and consistently, the recently validated, 4-variable CPR could theoretically improve the accuracy of AHT screening in PICU settings.