Literature DB >> 33798512

A Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed Abusive Head Trauma in Pediatric Intensive Care Settings.

Kent P Hymel1, Veronica Armijo-Garcia2, Matthew Musick3, Mark Marinello4, Bruce E Herman5, Kerri Weeks6, Suzanne B Haney7, Terra N Frazier8, Christopher L Carroll9, Natalie N Kissoon2, Reena Isaac3, Robin Foster4, Kristine A Campbell5, Kelly S Tieves8, Nina Livingston9, Ashley Bucher1, Maria C Woosley2, Dorinda Escamilla-Padilla2, Nancy Jaimon3, Lucinda Kustka7, Ming Wang10, Vernon M Chinchilli10, Mark S Dias11, Jennie Noll12.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of the PediBIRN (Pediatric Brain Injury Research Network) 4-variable clinical decision rule (CDR) on abuse evaluations and missed abusive head trauma in pediatric intensive care settings. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a cluster randomized trial. Participants included 8 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in US academic medical centers; PICU and child abuse physicians; and consecutive patients with acute head injures <3 years (n = 183 and n = 237, intervention vs control). PICUs were stratified by patient volumes, pair-matched, and randomized equally to intervention or control conditions. Randomization was concealed from the biostatistician. Physician-directed, cluster-level interventions included initial and booster training, access to an abusive head trauma probability calculator, and information sessions. Outcomes included "higher risk" patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse (with skeletal survey and retinal examination), potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (patients lacking either evaluation), and estimates of missed abusive head trauma (among potential cases). Group comparisons were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models.
RESULTS: Intervention physicians evaluated a greater proportion of higher risk patients thoroughly (81% vs 73%, P = .11) and had fewer potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (21% vs 32%, P = .05), although estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma did not differ (7% vs 13%, P = .22). From baseline (in previous studies) to trial, the change in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly (67%→81% vs 78%→73%, P = .01), and potential cases of missed abusive head trauma (40%→21% vs 29%→32%, P = .003), diverged significantly. We did not identify a significant divergence in the number of estimated cases of missed abusive head trauma (15%→7% vs 11%→13%, P = .22).
CONCLUSIONS: PediBIRN-4 CDR application facilitated changes in abuse evaluations that reduced potential cases of missed abusive head trauma in PICU settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03162354.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  child abuse; clinical decision rule; screening test

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33798512      PMCID: PMC8403132          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.03.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr        ISSN: 0022-3476            Impact factor:   6.314


  26 in total

1.  Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions.

Authors:  Brendan M Reilly; Arthur T Evans
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Beyond morbidity and mortality: the social and legal outcomes of non-accidental trauma.

Authors:  Shannon N Acker; Jonathan P Roach; David A Partrick; Frederick M Karrer; Denis D Bensard; Andrew P Sirotnak
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 2.545

3.  Abusive head trauma in young children: a population-based study.

Authors:  Anbesaw W Selassie; Keith Borg; Carrie Busch; W Scott Russell
Journal:  J Trauma Nurs       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.010

4.  Validation of a clinical prediction rule for pediatric abusive head trauma.

Authors:  Kent P Hymel; Veronica Armijo-Garcia; Robin Foster; Terra N Frazier; Michael Stoiko; LeeAnn M Christie; Nancy S Harper; Kerri Weeks; Christopher L Carroll; Phil Hyden; Andrew Sirotnak; Edward Truemper; Amy E Ornstein; Ming Wang
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Analysis of missed cases of abusive head trauma.

Authors:  C Jenny; K P Hymel; A Ritzen; S E Reinert; T C Hay
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-02-17       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Prior opportunities to identify abuse in children with abusive head trauma.

Authors:  Megan M Letson; Jennifer N Cooper; Katherine J Deans; Philip V Scribano; Kathi L Makoroff; Kenneth W Feldman; Rachel P Berger
Journal:  Child Abuse Negl       Date:  2016-09-25

7.  Validation of the Pittsburgh Infant Brain Injury Score for Abusive Head Trauma.

Authors:  Rachel Pardes Berger; Janet Fromkin; Bruce Herman; Mary Clyde Pierce; Richard A Saladino; Lynda Flom; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Tom McGinn; Rudolph Richichi; Patrick M Kochanek
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  Using hospital discharge data to track inflicted traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Katherine D Ellingson; John M Leventhal; Harold B Weiss
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Framework for the impact analysis and implementation of Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs).

Authors:  Emma Wallace; Susan M Smith; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Paul Vaucher; Colin McCowan; Gary Collins; Jan Verbakel; Monica Lakhanpaul; Tom Fahey
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 10.  Network dysfunction after traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  David J Sharp; Gregory Scott; Robert Leech
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 42.937

View more
  1 in total

1.  Screening for pediatric abusive head trauma: Are three variables enough?

Authors:  Kent P Hymel; Wouter Karst; Mark Marinello; Bruce E Herman; Terra N Frazier; Christopher L Carroll; Veronica Armijo-Garcia; Matthew Musick; Kerri Weeks; Suzanne B Haney; Afshin Pashai; Ming Wang
Journal:  Child Abuse Negl       Date:  2022-01-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.