Juliet Rumball-Smith1, Janet Fromkin2, Bruce Rosenthal3, Debra Shane2, Janet Skrbin4, Tammy Bimber5, Rachel P Berger6. 1. RAND Corporation, Health, Santa Monica, CA, United States; Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand. 2. Departments of Pediatrics, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, UPMC Mercy Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, UPMC Hamot, Erie, PA, United States. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, UPMC Horizon, Greenville, PA, United States. 6. Departments of Pediatrics, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: rachel.berger@chp.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine child abuse screening is an approach to early identification of abuse. Previous studies evaluated paper-based screens; the widespread use of electronic health records suggests that screening is more likely to succeed if integrated into the electronic record. OBJECTIVE: To implement an electronic health record-based child abuse screen in a diverse hospital system and to evaluate the screening rate, rate of positive screens, and number of reports to Child Protective Services and assess whether hospital and patient characteristics are associated with these rates. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Children <13 years of age evaluated at one of 13 Emergency Departments within University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System. METHODS: A previously validated child abuse screen was slightly modified and integrated into Cerner. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of the outcomes of interest, controlling for key covariates. RESULTS: Of 17,163 eligible children: 68% received the screen of which 1.9% were positive. The rate of reports to Child Protective Services was higher among children who were screened (p < 0.0001). Younger children were more likely to be screened, have a positive screen, and have a report filed. There was no difference in the odds of being screened according to hospital teaching status, size or urban vs rural location. CONCLUSIONS: A child abuse screening tool can be integrated into the electronic health record in a large health-care network. The increased number of reports among children who were screened suggests that screening facilitates detection of suspected maltreatment.
BACKGROUND: Routine child abuse screening is an approach to early identification of abuse. Previous studies evaluated paper-based screens; the widespread use of electronic health records suggests that screening is more likely to succeed if integrated into the electronic record. OBJECTIVE: To implement an electronic health record-based child abuse screen in a diverse hospital system and to evaluate the screening rate, rate of positive screens, and number of reports to Child Protective Services and assess whether hospital and patient characteristics are associated with these rates. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING:Children <13 years of age evaluated at one of 13 Emergency Departments within University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health System. METHODS: A previously validated child abuse screen was slightly modified and integrated into Cerner. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of the outcomes of interest, controlling for key covariates. RESULTS: Of 17,163 eligible children: 68% received the screen of which 1.9% were positive. The rate of reports to Child Protective Services was higher among children who were screened (p < 0.0001). Younger children were more likely to be screened, have a positive screen, and have a report filed. There was no difference in the odds of being screened according to hospital teaching status, size or urban vs rural location. CONCLUSIONS: A child abuse screening tool can be integrated into the electronic health record in a large health-care network. The increased number of reports among children who were screened suggests that screening facilitates detection of suspected maltreatment.
Authors: Gunjan Tiyyagura; Andrea G Asnes; John M Leventhal; Eugene D Shapiro; Marc Auerbach; Wei Teng; Emily Powers; Amy Thomas; Daniel M Lindberg; Justin McClelland; Carol Kutryb; Thomas Polzin; Karen Daughtridge; Virginia Sevin; Allen L Hsiao Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Gunjan Tiyyagura; Paula Schaeffer; Marcie Gawel; John M Leventhal; Marc Auerbach; Andrea G Asnes Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Ruhee Shah; Alessandra Della Porta; Sherman Leung; Margaret Samuels-Kalow; Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Lynne D Richardson; Michelle P Lin Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Mohammed Al Ani; George Garas; James Hollingshead; Drostan Cheetham; Thanos Athanasiou; Vanash Patel Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.132
Authors: Thomas McGinn; David A Feldstein; Isabel Barata; Emily Heineman; Joshua Ross; Dana Kaplan; Safiya Richardson; Barbara Knox; Amanda Palm; Francesca Bullaro; Nicholas Kuehnel; Linda Park; Sundas Khan; Benjamin Eithun; Rachel P Berger Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 4.730