Child neglect in Saudi Arabia: The neglected form of child maltreatment.

OBJECTIVES: To shed light on types, family profiles, risk factors, and outcomes of child neglect in Saudi Arabia. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was carried out at King Abdullah Specialized Children's Hospital, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Cases of child neglect diagnosed by the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) team were reviewed. Data were extracted from patients' electronic charts and SCAN team records. RESULTS: A total of 309 cases of child neglect were diagnosed between 2015-2019. Mean age of victims was 4.4±4.1 years, and 51.8% were male gender.Supervisory neglect was the most common form (63.1%), followed by medical neglect (39.2%), emotional neglect (6.8%), physical neglect (5.5%), and educational neglect (3.2%). Children between the ages of one and 3 years were 3.3 times more likely to be victims of supervisory neglect and girls were 4.5 times more likely to be victims of educational neglect. Children living with ≥4 siblings were 7 times more likely to be victims of physical neglect and 1.9 times of medical neglect. With regard to emotional neglect, children of unemployed fathers were 3.5 times more likely to be parentally neglected than children of employed fathers. Worsening of the underlying disease (30%) and internal injuries (23.5%) were the most common consequences of neglect. Mortality attributed to neglect was documented in 8 (2.6%) children. CONCLUSION: Although child neglect is common in Saudi Arabia, it has not been recognized as an important cause of morbidity and mortality of children. This implies the need for a national protocol that would help identify high-risk families for early detection and implementation of prevention programs.

Assessment knowledge and practices of central line insertion and maintenance in adult intensive care units at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of central line bundle by healthcare workers (HCWs) is essential for preventing catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). The objective was to assess the knowledge and practice of insertion and maintenance central line bundles among HCWs in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at King Abdul-Aziz medical city in Riyadh between November 2017 and April 2018. The target was nurses and physicians working in three ICUs. The knowledge and practice were assessed using a structured study questionnaire that included also demographic characteristics. RESULTS: A total 171 nurses and 41 physicians were included in the current analysis. More than 90% of HCWs correctly answered 9 out of 12 knowledge questions, specially questions related hand hygiene, maximal barrier, daily assessment, and dressing change. The overall knowledge score was 82% and was significantly higher among those who received central line bundle training. Self-reported compliance (all or most of the time) with 10 different bundle recommendations ranged between 50% and 97%, being highest with hand hygiene, maximal barrier, and using chlorhexidine (97% each) and lowest with using the subclavian site (50%). The overall self-reported compliance score was 87% and was significantly higher among nurses. There was weak positive correlation between knowledge and practice (correlation coefficient 0.266, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Knowledge and compliance of central line bundle were generally high in our HCWs. Training is important in improving knowledge of central line bundle. Future educational activities should focus on specific compliance deficiencies such as using the subclavian site and dressing change.

Causes of the delay in creating permanent vascular access in hemodialysis patients.

Majority of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients undergo hemodialysis (HD) with central venous catheter which has multiple complications. This study aims to identify the physicians' perspectives regarding the reasons of delayed arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to improve the quality of CKD patients' care and prognosis and prevent complications. A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on KSA nephrologists using a questionnaire which includes factors associated with delay in AVF creation, which were categorized into patient, physician, and hospital factors. The optimal timing of starting dialysis was also assessed. In a total of 212 participants, 131 (61.8%) were of consultant level, with the largest numbers being from the Central region (52.4%). The most important patient factors associated with delay in AVF creation were denial of kidney disease or the need of AVF (76.4%), dialysis fears and practical concern (75.9%), and patient refusal (73.1%). The most important physician and hospital factors were insufficient conduction of predialysis care and education (63.7%) and late referral to a nephrologist (56.6%). Participants would create AVF when the patient reaches Stage 4 CKD (69.3%) or Stage 5 (27.4%), and 88.7% of the participants would do so 3-6 months before the anticipated start of HD. Over two-thirds of the participants (68.4%) chose patient as the main factor contributing to the delay of permanent vascular access. A validated approach to patient selection, patient-centered predialysis care, and referral to vascular access creation that could be applied on different types of patients in different regions is required.