Kristin Garton Crichton1, Jennifer N Cooper2, Peter C Minneci2,3, Jonathan I Groner3, Jonathan D Thackeray4, Katherine J Deans2,3. 1. Division of Child and Family Advocacy, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 655 E Livingston Ave, Columbus, 43205, OH, United States. kristin.crichton@nationwidechildrens.org. 2. Center for Surgical Outcomes Research and the Center for Innovation in Pediatric Practice, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Childrens Drive, Columbus, 43205, OH, United States. 3. Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Childrens Drive, Columbus, 43205, OH, United States. 4. Division of Child and Family Advocacy, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 655 E Livingston Ave, Columbus, 43205, OH, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recognition of physical child abuse is imperative for ensuring children's safety. Screening tools (ST) may increase identification of physical abuse; however, the extent of their use is unknown. This study assessed use of STs for physical abuse in children's hospitals and determined attitudes regarding STs. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to child abuse program contacts at 103 children's hospitals. The survey assessed institutional use of a ST for physical abuse and characteristics of the ST used. Respondents were asked to identify benefits and liabilities of STs used or barriers to ST use. RESULTS: Seventy-two respondents (70 %) completed the survey; most (64 %) were child abuse pediatricians. Nine (13 %) respondents reported using a ST for physical abuse; STs varied in length, population, administration, and outcomes of a positive screen. Most respondents (86 %) using a ST felt that it increased detection of abuse. Barriers noted included lack of time for development and provider completion of a ST. CONCLUSIONS: While few respondents endorsed use of a ST for physical abuse, most believed that it increased detection of abuse. Future research should focus on development of a brief, uniform ST for physical abuse which may increase detection in at-risk children.
PURPOSE: Recognition of physical child abuse is imperative for ensuring children's safety. Screening tools (ST) may increase identification of physical abuse; however, the extent of their use is unknown. This study assessed use of STs for physical abuse in children's hospitals and determined attitudes regarding STs. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to child abuse program contacts at 103 children's hospitals. The survey assessed institutional use of a ST for physical abuse and characteristics of the ST used. Respondents were asked to identify benefits and liabilities of STs used or barriers to ST use. RESULTS: Seventy-two respondents (70 %) completed the survey; most (64 %) were child abuse pediatricians. Nine (13 %) respondents reported using a ST for physical abuse; STs varied in length, population, administration, and outcomes of a positive screen. Most respondents (86 %) using a ST felt that it increased detection of abuse. Barriers noted included lack of time for development and provider completion of a ST. CONCLUSIONS: While few respondents endorsed use of a ST for physical abuse, most believed that it increased detection of abuse. Future research should focus on development of a brief, uniform ST for physical abuse which may increase detection in at-risk children.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Antoinette L Laskey; Timothy E Stump; Susan M Perkins; Gregory D Zimet; Steven J Sherman; Stephen M Downs Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Eveline C F M Louwers; Marjo J Affourtit; Henriette A Moll; Harry J de Koning; Ida J Korfage Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Emalee G Flaherty; Robert D Sege; John Griffith; Lori Lyn Price; Richard Wasserman; Eric Slora; Niramol Dhepyasuwan; Donna Harris; David Norton; Mary Lu Angelilli; Dianna Abney; Helen J Binns Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lynn K Sheets; Matthew E Leach; Ian J Koszewski; Ashley M Lessmeier; Melodee Nugent; Pippa Simpson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Judith S Sittig; Cuno S P M Uiterwaal; Karel G M Moons; Edward E S Nieuwenhuis; Elise M van de Putte Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.125