The SWIS trial: Protocol of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of school based social work.

BACKGROUND: Child and family social workers in the UK work closely with other agencies including schools and the police, and typically they are based in local authority offices. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of placing social workers in schools (SWIS) on the need for social care interventions. SWIS was piloted in three local authorities in 2018-2020, and findings from a feasibility study of the pilots suggests SWIS may operate through three key pathways: (1) by enhancing schools' response to safeguarding issues, (2) through increased collaboration between social workers, school staff, and parents, and (3) by improving relationships between social workers and young people. METHODS: The study is a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial building on three feasibility studies which found SWIS to be promising. Social workers will work within secondary schools across local authorities in England. 280 mainstream secondary schools will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to SWIS or a comparison arm, which will be schools that continue as normal, without a social worker. The primary outcome will be the rate of Child Protection (Section 47) enquiries. Secondary outcomes will comprise rate of referrals to children's social care, rate of Child in Need (Section 17) assessments, days spent in care, and educational attendance and attainment. The study also includes an economic evaluation, and an implementation and process evaluation. Social care outcomes will be measured in July 2022, and educational outcomes will be measured in July 2023. Days in care will be measured at both time points. DISCUSSION: Findings will explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SWIS on the need for social care interventions. A final report will be published in January 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry on 13.11.2020 (ISRCTN90922032).

Evaluation of the efficacy and impact of a clinical prediction tool to identify maltreatment associated with children's burns.

Background: An estimated 10%-24% of children attending emergency departments with a burn are maltreated. Objective: To test whether a clinical prediction tool (Burns Risk assessment for Neglect or abuse Tool; BuRN-Tool) improved the recognition of maltreatment and increased the referral of high-risk children to safeguarding services for assessment. Methods: A prospective study of children presenting with burns to four UK hospitals (2015-2018), each centre providing a minimum of 200 cases before and after the introduction of the BuRN-Tool. The proportions of children referred to safeguarding services were compared preintervention and postintervention, and the relationship between referral and the recommended cut-off for concern (BuRN-Tool score (BT-score) ≥3) was explored. Results: The sample was 2443 children (median age 2 years). Nurses and junior doctors mainly completed the BuRN-Tool, and a BT-score was available for 90.8% of cases. After intervention, 28.4% (334/1174) had a BT-score ≥3 and were nearly five times more likely to be discussed with a senior clinician than those with a BT-score <3 (65.3% vs 13.4%, p<0.001). There was no overall difference in the proportion of safeguarding referrals preintervention and postintervention. After intervention, the proportion of referrals for safeguarding concerns was greater when the BT-score was ≥3 (p=0.05) but not for scores <3 (p=0.60). A BT-score of 3 as a cut-off for referral had a sensitivity of 72.1, a specificity of 82.7 and a positive likelihood ratio of 4.2. Conclusions: A BT-score ≥3 encouraged discussion of cases of concern with senior colleagues and increased the referral of <5 year-olds with safeguarding concerns to children's social care.

Burns and Scalds Assessment Template: standardising clinical assessment of childhood burns in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: The Burns and Scalds Assessment Template (BaSAT) is an evidence-based proforma coproduced by researchers and ED staff with the aim of (1) standardising the assessment of children attending ED with a burn, (2) improving documentation and (3) screening for child maltreatment. This study aimed to test whether the BaSAT improved documentation of clinical, contributory and causal factors of children's burns. METHODS: A retrospective before-and-after study compared the extent to which information was recorded for 37 data fields after the BaSAT was introduced in one paediatric ED. Pre-BaSAT, a convenience sample of 50 patient records of children who had a burn was obtained from the hospital electronic database of 2007. The post-BaSAT sample included 50 randomly selected case notes from 2016/2017 that were part of another research project. Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to test for statistical significance. RESULTS: Pre-BaSAT, documentation of key data fields was poor. Post-BaSAT, this varied less between patients, and median completeness significantly (p<0.001) increased from 44% (IQR 4%-94%) to 96% (IQR 94%-100%). Information on 'screening for maltreatment, referrals to social care and outcome' was poorly recorded pre-BaSAT (median of 4% completed fields) and showed the greatest overall improvement (to 95%, p<0.001). Documentation of domestic violence at home and child's ethnicity improved significantly (p<0.001) post-BaSAT; however, these were still not recorded in 36% and 56% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Introduction of the BaSAT significantly improved and standardised the key clinical data routinely recorded for children attending ED with a burn.

Contact burns: the influence of agents and mechanisms of injury on anatomical burn locations in children <5 years old and associations with child protection referrals.

OBJECTIVE: To identify how causative agents and mechanisms of injury influence the location of an accidental contact burn in children and whether these factors differ in cases referred for child protection (CP) assessment. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cross-sectional study. SETTING: 20 hospital sites across England and Wales, including: emergency departments, minor injury units and regional burn units. PATIENTS: Children less than 5 years old who attended hospital for a contact burn (August 2015 to September 2018). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Location of burns with respect to agent and mechanism for accidental contact burns. Secondary outcome: mechanism, agent and location of burns referred for CP assessment. RESULTS: 816 accidental burns and 92 referrals for CP assessment. The most common for accidental burns: mechanism was reaching while stationary (68%, 553/816), agent was oven (24.5%, 200/816) and site was the hand (69.2%, 565/816). Burns to head and trunk were rare at 3.7% (30/816). The data enabled a tabulation of the locations of burns as predicted by agent and mechanism of injury. The location of the burn was most strongly influenced by mechanism.Burns from irons (p<0.01), caused by mechanisms independent of the child (p=0.01), unwitnessed burns (p<0.001) and burns to the head and trunk (p<0.001) were significantly more common among the children referred for CP assessment. CONCLUSIONS: By overlaying agent, mechanism and site it was possible to tabulate and quantify simple narratives of accidental contact burns in population of young children. These findings have the potential to aid clinicians in recognising accidental contact burns.