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.

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.

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.