Development of a Child Abuse Checklist to Evaluate Prehospital Provider Performance.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and provide validity evidence for a performance checklist to evaluate the child abuse screening behaviors of prehospital providers. METHODS: Checklist Development: We developed the first iteration of the checklist after review of the relevant literature and on the basis of the authors' clinical experience. Next, a panel of six content experts participated in three rounds of Delphi review to reach consensus on the final checklist items. Checklist Validation: Twenty-eight emergency medical services (EMS) providers (16 EMT-Basics, 12 EMT-Paramedics) participated in a standardized simulated case of physical child abuse to an infant followed by one-on-one semi-structured qualitative interviews. Three reviewers scored the videotaped performance using the final checklist. Light's kappa and Cronbach's alpha were calculated to assess inter-rater reliability (IRR) and internal consistency, respectively. The correlation of successful child abuse screening with checklist task completion and with participant characteristics were compared using Pearson's chi squared test to gather evidence for construct validity. RESULTS: The Delphi review process resulted in a final checklist that included 24 items classified with trichotomous scoring (done, not done, or not applicable). The overall IRR of the three raters was 0.70 using Light's kappa, indicating substantial agreement. Internal consistency of the checklist was low, with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.61. Of 28 participants, only 14 (50%) successfully screened for child abuse in simulation. Participants who successfully screened for child abuse did not differ significantly from those who failed to screen in terms of training level, past experience with child abuse reporting, or self-reported confidence in detecting child abuse (all p > 0.30). Of all 24 tasks, only the task of exposing the infant significantly correlated with successful detection of child abuse (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a child abuse checklist that demonstrated strong content validity and substantial inter-rater reliability, but successful item completion did not correlate with other markers of provider experience. The validated instrument has important potential for training, continuing education, and research for prehospital providers at all levels of training.

Barriers and Facilitators to Recognition and Reporting of Child Abuse by Prehospital Providers.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital care providers are in a unique position to provide initial unadulterated information about the scene where a child is abusively injured or neglected. However, they receive minimal training with respect to detection of Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) and make few reports of suspected CAN to child protective services. AIMS: To explore barriers and facilitators to the recognition and reporting of CAN by prehospital care providers. DESIGN/METHODS: Twenty-eight prehospital care providers participated in a simulated case of infant abusive head trauma prior to participating in one-on-one semi-structured qualitative debriefs. Researchers independently coded transcripts from the debriefing and then collectively refined codes and created themes. Data collection and analysis continued past the point of thematic saturation. RESULTS: Providers described 3 key tasks when caring for a patient thought to be maltreated: (1) Medically managing the patient, which included assessment of the patient's airway, breathing, and circulation and management of the chief complaint, followed by evaluation for CAN; (2) Evaluating the scene and family interactions for signs suggestive of CAN, which included gathering information on the presence of elicit substances and observing how the child behaves in the presence of caregivers; and (3) Creating a safety plan, which included, calling police for support, avoiding confrontation with the caregivers and sharing suspicion of CAN with hospital providers and child protective services. Reported barriers to recognizing CAN included discomfort with pediatric patients; uncertainty related to CAN (accepting parental story about alternative diagnosis and difficulty distinguishing between accidental and intentional injuries); a focus on the chief complaint; and limited opportunity for evaluation. Barriers to reporting included fear of being wrong; fear of caregiver reactions; and working in a fast-paced setting. In contrast, facilitators to reporting included understanding of the mandated reporter role; sharing thought processes with peers; and supervisor support. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital care providers have a unique vantage point in detecting CAN, but limited resources and knowledge related to this topic. Focused education on recognition of signs of physical abuse; increased training on scene safety; real-time decision support; and increased follow-up related to cases of CAN may improve their detection of CAN.

Pediatric anaphylaxis management in the prehospital setting.

PURPOSE: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that occurs after contact with an allergy-causing substance. Timely administration of intramuscular epinephrine is the treatment of choice for controlling symptoms and decreasing fatalities. Our purpose was to investigate the prehospital management of anaphylaxis among patients receiving care in an urban tertiary care pediatric emergency department (PED). METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review from May 2008 to January 2010 of patients 18 years or younger who received care in the PED for anaphylaxis. Data were extracted by one investigator and included demographic information, patient symptoms, past medical history, medications administered (including route and provider), and final disposition. RESULTS: We reviewed 218 cases of anaphylaxis in 202 children. Mean age of patients was 7.4 years; 56% of patients were male. A total of 214 (98%) manifested symptoms in the skin/mucosal system, 68% had respiratory symptoms, 44% had gastrointestinal symptoms, and 2% had hypotension. Sixty-seven percent had a previous history of allergic reaction and 38% had a history of asthma. Seventy-six percent of the patients presented with anaphylaxis to food products, 8% to medications, 1% to stings, and 16% to unknown allergens. Reactions occurred at home or with family members 87% of the time, and at school 12% of the time. Only 36% of the patients who met criteria for anaphylaxis had epinephrine administered by emergency medical services (EMS). Among 26 patients with anaphylactic reactions at school, 69% received epinephrine by the school nurse. Of the 117 patients with known allergies who were with their parents at the time of anaphylactic reaction, 41% received epinephrine. Thirteen patients were seen by a physician prior to coming to the PED; all received epinephrine at the physician's office. In total, epinephrine was given to 41% (89) of the 218 cases prior to coming to the PED. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation revealed low rates of epinephrine administration by EMS providers and parents/patients. Education about anaphylaxis is imperative to encourage earlier administration of epinephrine.