Incidence of medically attended paediatric burns across the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Childhood burns represent a burden on health services, yet the full extent of the problem is difficult to quantify. We estimated the annual UK incidence from primary care (PC), emergency attendances (EA), hospital admissions (HA) and deaths. METHODS: The population was children (0-15 years), across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI), with medically attended burns 2013-2015. Routinely collected data sources included PC attendances from Clinical Practice Research Datalink 2013-2015), EAs from Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI, 2014) and National Health Services Wales Informatics Services, HAs from Hospital Episode Statistics, National Services Scotland and Social Services and Public Safety (2014), and mortality from the Office for National Statistics, National Records of Scotland and NI Statistics and Research Agency 2013-2015. The population denominators were based on Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates. RESULTS: The annual PC burns attendance was 16.1/10 000 persons at risk (95% CI 15.6 to 16.6); EAs were 35.1/10 000 persons at risk (95% CI 34.7 to 35.5) in England and 28.9 (95% CI 27.5 to 30.3) in Wales. HAs ranged from 6.0/10 000 person at risk (95% CI 5.9 to 6.2) in England to 3.1 in Wales and Scotland (95% CI 2.7 to 3.8 and 2.7 to 3.5, respectively) and 2.8 (95% CI 2.4 to 3.4) in NI. In England, Wales and Scotland, 75% of HAs were aged <5 years. Mortality was low with 0.1/1 000 000 persons at risk (95% CI 0.06 to 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: With an estimated 19 574 PC attendances, 37 703 EAs (England and Wales only), 6639 HAs and 1-6 childhood deaths annually, there is an urgent need to improve UK childhood burns prevention.

Exploring the acceptability of a clinical decision rule to identify paediatric burns due to child abuse or neglect.

OBJECTIVE: An evidence based clinical decision rule (CDR) was developed from a systematic review and epidemiological study to identify burns due to child maltreatment (abuse or neglect). Prior to an implementation evaluation, we aim to explore clinicians' views of the CDR, the likelihood that it would influence their management and factors regarding its acceptability. METHODS: A semistructured questionnaire exploring demographics, views of the CDR and data collection pro forma, ability to recognise maltreatment and likelihood of following CDR recommended child protection (CP) action, was administered to 55 doctors and nurses in eight emergency departments and two burns units. Recognition of maltreatment was assessed via four fictitious case vignettes. ANALYSIS: Fisher's exact test and variability measured by coefficient of unalikeability. RESULTS: The majority of participants found the CDR and data collection pro forma useful (45/55, 81.8%). Only five clinicians said that they would not take the action recommended by the CDR (5/54, 9.3%). Lower grade doctors were more likely to follow the CDR recommendations (p=0.04) than any other grade, while senior doctors would consider it within their decision making. Factors influencing uptake include: brief training, background to CDR development and details of appropriate actions. CONCLUSIONS: It is apparent that clinicians are willing to use a CDR to assist in identifying burns due to child maltreatment. However, it is clear that an implementation evaluation must encompass the influential variables identified to maximise uptake.