Improving Child Protection in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review of Professional Interventions for Health Care Providers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of professional and organizational interventions aimed at improving medical processes, such as documentation or clinical assessments by health care providers, in the care of pediatric emergency department (ED) patients where abuse was suspected. METHODS: A search of electronic databases, references, key journals, and conference proceedings was conducted and primary authors were contacted. Studies whose purpose was to evaluate a strategy aimed at improving ED clinical care of suspected abuse were included. Study methodologic quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted the data, and a second checked for completeness and accuracy. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria: one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one quasi-RCT, and four observational studies. Study quality ranged from modest (observational studies) to good (trials). Variation in study interventions and outcomes limited between-study comparisons. The quasi-RCT supported self-instructional education kits as a means to improve physician knowledge for both physical abuse (mean +/- standard deviation [SD] pretest score = 13.12 +/- 2.36; mean +/- SD posttest score = 18.16 +/- 1.64) and sexual abuse (mean +/- SD pretest score = 10.81 +/- 3.20; mean +/- SD posttest score = 18.45 +/- 1.79). Modest-quality observational studies evaluated reminder systems for physician documentation with similar results across studies. Compared to standard practice, chart checklists paired with an educational program increased physician consideration of nonaccidental burns in burn cases (59% increase), documentation of time of injury (36% increase), and documentation of consistency (53% increase) and compatibility (55% increase) of reported histories. Decisional flow charts for suspected physical abuse also increased documentation of nonaccidental physical injury (69.5% increase; p < 0.0001) and had a similar significant effect as checklists on increasing documentation of history consistency and compatibility (69.5 and 70.0% increases, respectively; p < 0.0001) when compared to standard practice. No improvements were noted in these studies for documentation of consultations or current status with child protective services. The introduction of a specialized team and crisis center to standardize practice had little effect on physician documentation, but did increase documentation of child protective services involvement (22.7% increase; p < 0.005) and discharge status (23.7% increase; p < 0.02). Referral to social services increased in one study following the introduction of a chart checklist (8.6% increase; p = 0.018). A recently conducted multisite RCT did not support observational findings, reporting no significant effect of educational sessions and/or a chart checklist on ED practices. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of studies identified in this review highlights the need for future quality studies that address care of a vulnerable clinical population. While moderate-quality observational studies suggest that education and reminder systems increase clinical knowledge and documentation, these findings are not supported by a multisite randomized trial. The limited theoretical base for conceptualizing change in health care providers and the influence of the ED environment on clinical practice are limitations to this current evidence base.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».