Improving Child Protection in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review of Professional Interventions for Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".