Audit of paediatrician recognition of children's vulnerability to harm at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne.

AIM: Vulnerable children can be defined as those at risk of child abuse and neglect and long-term adverse health, neurodevelopmental and behavioural outcomes. This study examined whether a cohort of paediatricians and advanced trainees at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, recognised children's vulnerability. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical note in the electronic medical record (EMR) for 425 new patients presenting to five paediatric clinics between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017. We examined paediatrician documentation of adverse childhood experiences (ACE), risk and resilience factors, referrals for intervention to improve psychosocial well-being and the application of 'vulnerable child' alert flags in the EMR to indicate vulnerability to harm. Children were deemed vulnerable if the paediatrician explicitly stated it in the EMR, if the child had a 'vulnerable child' alert placed in their record or had an appropriate referral for management of neurodevelopmental trauma. RESULTS: Of the original cohort, 8% was documented as vulnerable, 21% had a referral for intervention and 2% had a 'vulnerable child' alert. Overall, paediatricians infrequently documented ACE, risk and protective factors. The odds of identifying vulnerability increased with each added risk factor recorded (odds ratio (OR) 2.6, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (1.9-3.5)), with an ACE score was >4 (OR 72, P < 0.001 (14.3-361)) and decreased with each added protective factor recorded (OR 0.6, P < 0.001 (0.5-0.8)). CONCLUSION: Paediatricians infrequently document ACE, risk and protective factors and rarely 'flag' children's vulnerability to harm. Identification of the vulnerable child is correlated with documentation of risk and resilience factors at the initial consultation.

Clinical prediction rules for abusive head trauma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma (AHT) has serious consequences for children and families. This systematic review identifies and compares clinical prediction rules (CPredRs) assisting clinicians in assessing suspected AHT. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases (January 1996 to August 2016). Externally validated CPredRs focusing on the detection of AHT in the clinical setting were included. RESULTS: Of 110 potential articles identified, three studies met the inclusion criteria: the Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network (PediBIRN) 4-Variable AHT CPredR, the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool and the Pittsburgh Infant Brain Injury Score (PIBIS). The CPredRs were designed for different populations and purposes: PediBIRN: intensive care unit admissions (<3 years) with head injury, to inform early decisions to launch or forego an evaluation for abuse (sensitivity 0.96); PredAHT: hospital admissions (<3 years) with intracranial injury, to assist clinicians in discussions with child abuse specialists (sensitivity 0.72); and PIBIS: well-appearing children (<1 year) in the emergency department with no history of trauma, temperature <38.3°C, and ≥1 symptom associated with high risk of AHT, to determine the need for a head CT scan (sensitivity 0.93). There was little overlap between the predictive variables. CONCLUSION: Three CPredRs for AHT were relevant at different stages in the diagnostic process. None of the CPredRs aimed to diagnose AHT but to act as aids/prompts to clinicians to seek further clinical, social or forensic information. None were widely validated in multiple settings. To assess safety and effectiveness in clinical practice, impact analyses are required and recommended.