Barriers and Facilitators to Recognition and Reporting of Child Abuse by Prehospital Providers.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care providers are in a unique position to provide initial unadulterated information about the scene where a child is abusively injured or neglected. However, they receive minimal training with respect to detection of Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) and make few reports of suspected CAN to child protective services. AIMS: To explore barriers and facilitators to the recognition and reporting of CAN by prehospital care providers. DESIGN/METHODS: Twenty-eight prehospital care providers participated in a simulated case of infant abusive head trauma prior to participating in one-on-one semi-structured qualitative debriefs. Researchers independently coded transcripts from the debriefing and then collectively refined codes and created themes. Data collection and analysis continued past the point of thematic saturation. RESULTS: Providers described 3 key tasks when caring for a patient thought to be maltreated: (1) Medically managing the patient, which included assessment of the patient's airway, breathing, and circulation and management of the chief complaint, followed by evaluation for CAN; (2) Evaluating the scene and family interactions for signs suggestive of CAN, which included gathering information on the presence of elicit substances and observing how the child behaves in the presence of caregivers; and (3) Creating a safety plan, which included, calling police for support, avoiding confrontation with the caregivers and sharing suspicion of CAN with hospital providers and child protective services. Reported barriers to recognizing CAN included discomfort with pediatric patients; uncertainty related to CAN (accepting parental story about alternative diagnosis and difficulty distinguishing between accidental and intentional injuries); a focus on the chief complaint; and limited opportunity for evaluation. Barriers to reporting included fear of being wrong; fear of caregiver reactions; and working in a fast-paced setting. In contrast, facilitators to reporting included understanding of the mandated reporter role; sharing thought processes with peers; and supervisor support. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital care providers have a unique vantage point in detecting CAN, but limited resources and knowledge related to this topic. Focused education on recognition of signs of physical abuse; increased training on scene safety; real-time decision support; and increased follow-up related to cases of CAN may improve their detection of CAN.

Development of a Child Abuse Checklist to Evaluate Prehospital Provider Performance.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and provide validity evidence for a performance checklist to evaluate the child abuse screening behaviors of prehospital providers. METHODS: Checklist Development: We developed the first iteration of the checklist after review of the relevant literature and on the basis of the authors' clinical experience. Next, a panel of six content experts participated in three rounds of Delphi review to reach consensus on the final checklist items. Checklist Validation: Twenty-eight emergency medical services (EMS) providers (16 EMT-Basics, 12 EMT-Paramedics) participated in a standardized simulated case of physical child abuse to an infant followed by one-on-one semi-structured qualitative interviews. Three reviewers scored the videotaped performance using the final checklist. Light's kappa and Cronbach's alpha were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability (IRR) and internal consistency, respectively. The correlation of successful child abuse screening with checklist task completion and with participant characteristics were compared using Pearson's chi squared test to gather evidence for construct validity. RESULTS: The Delphi review process resulted in a final checklist that included 24 items classified with trichotomous scoring (done, not done, or not applicable). The overall IRR of the three raters was 0.70 using Light's kappa, indicating substantial agreement. Internal consistency of the checklist was low, with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.61. Of 28 participants, only 14 (50%) successfully screened for child abuse in simulation. Participants who successfully screened for child abuse did not differ significantly from those who failed to screen in terms of training level, past experience with child abuse reporting, or self-reported confidence in detecting child abuse (all p > 0.30). Of all 24 tasks, only the task of exposing the infant significantly correlated with successful detection of child abuse (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a child abuse checklist that demonstrated strong content validity and substantial inter-rater reliability, but successful item completion did not correlate with other markers of provider experience. The validated instrument has important potential for training, continuing education, and research for prehospital providers at all levels of training.

Barriers and Facilitators to Detecting Child Abuse and Neglect in General Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Child abuse and neglect is common in the United States, and victims often present to emergency departments (EDs) for care. Most US children who seek care in EDs are treated in general EDs without specialized pediatric services. We aim to explore general ED providers' experiences with screening and reporting of child abuse and neglect to identify barriers and facilitators to detection of child abuse and neglect in the ED setting. METHODS: We conducted 29 semistructured interviews with medical providers at 3 general EDs, exploring experiences with child abuse and neglect. Consistent with grounded theory, researchers coded transcripts and then collectively refined codes and identified themes. Data collection and analysis continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Barriers to recognizing child abuse and neglect included providers' desire to believe the caregiver, failure to recognize that a child's presentation could be due to child abuse and neglect, challenges innate to working in an ED such as lack of ongoing contact with a family and provider biases. Barriers to reporting child abuse and neglect included factors associated with the reporting process, lack of follow-up of reported cases, and negative consequences of reporting such as testifying in court. Reported facilitators included real-time case discussion with peers or supervisors and the belief that it was better for the patient to report in the setting of suspicion. Finally, providers requested case-based education and child abuse and neglect consultation for unclear cases. CONCLUSION: Our interviews identified several approaches to improving detection of child abuse and neglect by general ED providers. These included providing education through case review, improving follow-up by Child Protective Services agencies, and increasing real-time assistance with patient care decisions.

Barriers to pediatric disaster triage: a qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: In disasters, paramedics often triage victims, including children. Little is known about obstacles paramedics face when performing pediatric disaster triage. OBJECTIVE: To determine obstacles to pediatric disaster triage performance for paramedics enrolled in a simulation-based disaster curriculum. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of paramedics' self-reported obstacles to pediatric disaster triage performance. The paramedics were enrolled in a pediatric disaster triage curriculum at one of three study sites. An individually administered, semi-structured debriefing was created iteratively, and used after a 10-victim, multiple-family house fire simulation. The debriefings were audio-recorded, and transcribed. Two investigators independently analyzed the transcripts. Using grounded theory strategy, the data were analyzed via 1) immersion and coding of data, 2) clustering of codes to generate themes, and 3) theme-based generation of hypotheses. While analyzing the data, we employed peer debriefing to determine emerging codes, groups, and thematic saturation. Systematically applied data trustworthiness strategies included triangulation and member checking. RESULTS: A total of 34 participants were debriefed, with prehospital care experience ranging from 1 to 25 years of experience. We identified several barriers to pediatric disaster triage: 1) lack of familiarity with children and their physiology, 2) challenges with triaging children with special health-care needs, 3) emotional reactions to triage situations, including a mother holding an injured/dead child, and 4) training limitations, including poor simulation fidelity. CONCLUSION: Paramedics report particular difficulty triaging multiple child disaster victims due to emotional obstacles, unfamiliarity with pediatric physiology, and struggles with triage rationale and efficiency.

A qualitative evaluation of capnography use in paediatric sedation: perceptions, practice and barriers.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We explored perceptions about capnography for procedural sedation and barriers to use in a paediatric emergency department. BACKGROUND: Capnography is a sensitive monitor of ventilation and is increasingly being studied in procedural sedation. While benefits have been found, it has not gained wide acceptance for monitoring of children during sedation. DESIGN: A qualitative exploratory study was performed. METHODS: Using a grounded theory approach, physicians and nurses from the paediatric emergency department participated in one-on-one interviews about their experiences with and opinions of capnography. An iterative process of data collection and analysis was used to inductively generate theories and themes until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Five physicians and 12 nurses were interviewed. Themes included: Experiences: Participants felt that procedural sedation is safe and adverse events are rare. Normal capnography readings reassured providers about the adequacy of ventilation. Knowledge: Despite experience with capnography, knowledge and comfort varied. Most participants requested additional education and training. Diffusion of Use: While participants expressed positive opinions about capnography, use for sedation was infrequent. Many participants felt that capnography use increased in other paediatric populations, such as patients with altered mental status, ingestions or head trauma. Barriers: Identified barriers to use included a lack of comfort with or knowledge about equipment, lack of availability of the monitor and cannulas, lack of inclusion of these supplies on a checklist for procedural sedation preparedness, and lack of a policy for use of capnography during sedation. CONCLUSION: Capnography use during sedation in the paediatric emergency department is limited despite positive experiences and opinions about this device. Addressing modifiable barriers such as instrument availability, continuing education, and inclusion on a checklist may increase use of capnography during sedation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Despite the perceived benefits, a broad implementation plan is required to introduce capnography successfully to the paediatric emergency department.

In situ pediatric trauma simulation: assessing the impact and feasibility of an interdisciplinary pediatric in situ trauma care quality improvement simulation program.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and measure the impact of an in situ interdisciplinary pediatric trauma quality improvement simulation program. METHODS: Twenty-two monthly simulations were conducted in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department with the aim of improving the quality of pediatric trauma (February 2010 to November 2012). Each session included 20 minutes of simulated patient care, followed by 30 minutes of debriefing that focused on teamwork, communication, and the identification of gaps in care. A single rater scored the performance of the team in real time using a validated assessment instrument for 6 subcomponents of care (teamwork, airway, intubation, breathing, circulation, and disability). Participants completed a survey and written feedback forms. RESULTS: A trend analysis of the 22 simulations found statistically significant positive trends for overall performance, teamwork, and intubation subcomponents; the strength of the upward trend was the strongest for the teamwork (τ = 0.512), followed by overall performance (τ = 0.488) and intubation (τ = 0.433). Two hundred fifty-one of 398 participants completed the participant feedback form (response rate, 63%), reporting that debriefing was the most valuable aspect of the simulation. CONCLUSIONS: An in situ interdisciplinary pediatric trauma simulation quality improvement program resulted in improved validated trauma simulation assessment scores for overall performance, teamwork, and intubation. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the program, and debriefing was reported as the most valuable component of the program.