Documentation : References

BACKGROUND: International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes are not well-suited to estimate physical abuse prevalence among hospitalized patients and may be even less accurate in emergency departments (EDs). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently published a child abuse and neglect syndromic surveillance definition to more accurately examine national abuse trends among ED visits. OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively apply the CDC syndromic definition to a population of physically abused children and determine its sensitivity for abuse in an ED and at hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: All physically abused children <5 years seen in the ED and evaluated by the child protection team from 2016 to 2020 at a large Midwestern children's hospital. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study utilizing the hospital's child protection team administrative database, the Pediatric Health Information System and the electronic health record to identify the study sample, chief complaint, and abuse-specific codes assigned in the ED and at hospital discharge. Abuse-specific codes were defined as all ICD-10-CM and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) codes included in the CDC syndromic definition, which was applied to the sample and its sensitivity determined. RESULTS: Among the 550 abused patients identified, most were male (58.4 %), white (65.1 %), <2 years old (80.4 %), and had public insurance (81.6 %). When applying the CDC syndromic definition, only 11.6 % were identified as abused in the ED and 65.3 % were identified at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The CDC syndrome surveillance definition lacks sensitivity in identifying abuse in the ED or at hospital discharge.

Primary care professionals (PCPs) can play a valuable role in the initial assessment of possible child sexual abuse (CSA), an all too prevalent problem. PCPs, however, are often reluctant to conduct these assessments. The goal of this paper is to help PCPs be more competent and comfortable playing a limited but key role. This is much needed as there may be no need for further assessment and also because of a relative paucity of medical experts in this area. While some children present with physical problems, the child's history is generally the critical information. This article therefore focuses on practical guidance regarding history-taking when CSA is suspected, incorporating evidence from research on forensic interviewing. We have been mindful of the practical constraints of a busy practice and the role of the public agencies in fully investigating possible CSA. The approach also enables PCPs to support children and their families.

Child abuse and neglect (CAN) medical experts provide specialized multidisciplinary care to children when there is concern for maltreatment. Their clinical notes contain valuable information on child- and family-level factors, clinical concerns, and service placements that may inform the needed supports for the family. We created and implemented a coding system for data abstraction from these notes. Participants were 1,397 children ages 0-17 years referred for a consultation with a CAN medical provider at an urban teaching and research hospital between March 2013 and December 2017. Coding themes were developed using an interdisciplinary team-based approach to qualitative analysis, and descriptive results are presented using a developmental-contextual framework. This study demonstrates the potential value of developing a coding system to assess characteristics and patterns from CAN medical provider notes, which could be helpful in improving quality of care and prevention and detection of child abuse.

Child abuse pediatricians have multiple roles in caring for abused children, including prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and, when needed, expert legal opinion. The child physical abuse consultation differs from the traditional medical consultation in that it has medical, investigative and legal audiences, all of whom have different information needs. How child abuse pediatricians approach their cases and how they document their initial inpatient consultations that will be used by such a diverse audience is currently unexplored. We used content analysis to examine 37 child physical abuse consultation notes from a national sample of child abuse pediatricians in order to understand physicians' approaches to these consultations. Three commonly used models of child physical abuse consultation were identified in the data that we named the base model, the investigative model, and the family-dynamic model. While model types overlap, each is distinguished by key features including the approach used to gather information, the information recorded, and the language used in documentation. The base model most closely mirrors the traditional medical approach; the investigative model concentrates on triangulation of sources of information; and, the family-dynamic model concentrates on physician perceptions of family relationships. The three models of consultations for child physical abuse mirror the areas of child abuse pediatrics: diagnostic, forensic and therapeutic. These models are considered in relationship to best practice from other medical specialties with forensic components.

OBJECTIVE: To assess interrater reliability and accuracy of an expert panel in classifying injuries of patients as abusive or accidental based on comprehensive case information. STUDY DESIGN: Data came from a prospective, observational, multicenter study investigating bruising characteristics of children younger than 4 years. We enrolled 2166 patients with broad ranges of illnesses and injuries presenting to one of 5 pediatric emergency departments in whom bruises were identified during examination. We collected comprehensive data regarding current and past injuries and illnesses, and provided deidentified, standardized case information to a 9-member multidisciplinary panel of experts with extensive experience in pediatric injury. Each panelist classified cases using a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from definite abuse to definite accident. Panelists also assessed whether report to child protective services (CPS) was warranted. We calculated reliability coefficients for likelihood of abuse and decision to report to CPS. RESULTS: The interrater reliability of the panelists was high. The Kendall coefficient (95% CI) for the likelihood of abuse was 0.89 (0.87, 0.91) and the kappa coefficient for the decision to report to CPS was 0.91 (0.87, 0.94). Reliability of pairs and subgroups of panelists were similarly high. A panel composite classification was nearly perfectly accurate in a subset of cases having definitive, corroborated injury status. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts with different backgrounds but common expertise in pediatric injury is a reliable and accurate criterion standard for classifying pediatric injuries as abusive or accidental in a sample of children presenting to a pediatric emergency department.

Primary care providers (PCPs) can play an important role in the continuity of care for children who experience sexual abuse (SA). We performed a retrospective, chart-based study of children 3 to 17 years old with SA history. Primary care medical records were reviewed for 2 years after a subspecialty SA evaluation. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with documentation of SA history and mental health management by the PCP. Of 131 included patients, 43% had PCP documentation of their SA history, which was associated with care from resident providers (P < .01). There was greater mental health management and mental health referrals by PCPs for the group with documentation compared with the group without documentation (52% vs 23%, P < .001). Overall, child SA history was poorly documented in primary care settings. Identifying mechanisms to improve communication about a child's SA history with PCPs is important for the child's ongoing care.

BACKGROUND: Identification of physical abuse at the point of care without a systematic approach remains inherently subjective and prone to judgement error. This study examines the implementation of an electronic health record (EHR)-based universal child injury screen (CIS) to improve detection rates of child abuse. METHODS: CIS was implemented in the EHR admission documentation for all patients age 5 or younger at a single medical center, with the following questions. 1) "Is this patient an injured/trauma patient?" 2) "If this is a trauma/injured patient, where did the injury occur?" A "Yes" response to Question 1 would alert a team of child abuse pediatricians and social workers to determine if a patient required formal child abuse clinical evaluation. Patients who received positive CIS responses, formal child abuse work-up, and/or reports to Child Protective Services (CPS) were reviewed for analysis. CPS rates from historical controls (2017-2018) were compared to post-implementation rates (2019-2021). RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2021, 14,150 patients were screened with CIS. 286 (2.0 %) patients screened received positive CIS responses. 166 (58.0 %) of these patients with positive CIS responses would not have otherwise been identified for child abuse evaluation by their treating teams. 18 (10.8 %) of the patients identified by the CIS and not by the treating team were later reported to CPS. Facility CPS reporting rates for physical abuse were 1.2 per 1000 admitted children age 5 or younger (pre-intervention) versus 4.2 per 1000 (post-intervention). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of CIS led to increased detection suspected child abuse among children age 5 or younger. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. TYPE OF STUDY: Study of Diagnostic Test.

BACKGROUND: Child abuse pediatricians (CAPs) are often consulted for injuries when child physical abuse is suspected or when the etiology of a serious injury is unclear. CAPs carefully evaluate the reported mechanism of the child's injury and the medical findings in the context of the child's family and social setting to identify possible risk and protective factors for child abuse and the need for social services. It is unknown what population risk indicators along with other social cues CAPs record in the social history of the consultation notes when assessing families who are being evaluated for child physical abuse. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Thirty-two CAPs representing 28 US child abuse programs. METHODS: Participants submitted 730 completed cases of inpatient medical consultation notes for three injury types: traumatic brain injury, long bone fracture, and skull fracture in hospitalized children 4 years of age and younger. We defined a priori 12 social cues using known population risk indicators (e.g., single mother) and identified de novo 13 negative (e.g., legal engagement) and ten positive social cues (e.g., competent parenting). Using content analysis, we systematically coded the social history for the social cues. RESULTS: We coded 3,543 cues resulting in a median of 7 coded cues per case. One quarter of the cues were population indicators while half of the cues were negative and one quarter positive. CONCLUSIONS: CAPs choose a wide variety of information, not always related to known population risk indicators, to include in their social histories.

Pediatricians have implicit and explicit racial biases that impact the health and well-being of children and their families.1,2 Similarly, effects of racism on diagnosis and reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect to child protective services (CPS) can have serious consequences. Although we and others are mandated to report suspected child abuse or neglect in all US states and territories, the threshold for reporting requires only “reasonable suspicion” of abuse or neglect.3 Pediatricians may also report families that they perceive need additional resources.

Importance: Bruising caused by physical abuse is the most common antecedent injury to be overlooked or misdiagnosed as nonabusive before an abuse-related fatality or near-fatality in a young child. Bruising occurs from both nonabuse and abuse, but differences identified by a clinical decision rule may allow improved and earlier recognition of the abused child. Objective: To refine and validate a previously derived bruising clinical decision rule (BCDR), the TEN-4 (bruising to torso, ear, or neck or any bruising on an infant <4.99 months of age), for identifying children at risk of having been physically abused. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from December 1, 2011, to March 31, 2016, at emergency departments of 5 urban children's hospitals. Children younger than 4 years with bruising were identified through deliberate examination. Statistical analysis was completed in June 2020. Exposures: Bruising characteristics in 34 discrete body regions, patterned bruising, cumulative bruise counts, and patient's age. The BCDR was refined and validated based on these variables using binary recursive partitioning analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Injury from abusive vs nonabusive trauma was determined by the consensus judgment of a multidisciplinary expert panel. Results: A total of 21123 children were consecutively screened for bruising, and 2161 patients (mean [SD] age, 2.1 [1.1] years; 1296 [60%] male; 1785 [83%] White; 1484 [69%] non-Hispanic/Latino) were enrolled. The expert panel achieved consensus on 2123 patients (98%), classifying 410 (19%) as abuse and 1713 (79%) as nonabuse. A classification tree was fit to refine the rule and validated via bootstrap resampling. The resulting BCDR was 95.6% (95% CI, 93.0%-97.3%) sensitive and 87.1% (95% CI, 85.4%-88.6%) specific for distinguishing abuse from nonabusive trauma based on body region bruised (torso, ear, neck, frenulum, angle of jaw, cheeks [fleshy], eyelids, and subconjunctivae), bruising anywhere on an infant 4.99 months and younger, or patterned bruising (TEN-4-FACESp). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, an affirmative finding for any of the 3 BCDR TEN-4-FACESp components in children younger than 4 years indicated a potential risk for abuse; these results warrant further evaluation. Clinical application of this tool has the potential to improve recognition of abuse in young children with bruising.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the positive predictive value of International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes in identifying young children diagnosed with physical abuse. METHODS: We extracted 230 charts of children <24 months of age who had any emergency department, inpatient, or ambulatory care encounters between Oct 1, 2015 and Sept 30, 2020 coded using ICD-10-CM codes suggestive of physical abuse. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine if physical abuse was considered during the medical encounter and assess the level of diagnostic certainty for physical abuse. Positive predictive value of each ICD-10-CM code was assessed. RESULTS: Of 230 charts with ICD-10 codes concerning for physical abuse, 209 (91%) had documentation that a diagnosis of physical abuse was considered during an encounter. The majority of cases, 138 (60%), were rated as definitely or likely abuse, 36 cases (16%) were indeterminate, and 35 (15%) were likely or definitely accidental injury. Other forms of suspected maltreatment were discussed in 16 (7%) charts and 5 (2%) had no documented concerns for child maltreatment. The positive predictive values of the specific ICD-10 codes for encounters rated as definitely or likely abuse varied considerably, ranging from 0.89 (0.80-0.99) for T74.12 "Adult and child abuse, neglect, and other maltreatment, confirmed" to 0.24 (95% CI: 0.06-0.42) for Z04.72 "Encounter for examination and observation following alleged child physical abuse." CONCLUSIONS: ICD-10-CM codes identify young children who experience physical abuse, but certain codes have a higher positive predictive value than others.

Photographic documentation of significant findings is an important part of any child abuse evaluation. High-quality photographs of significant physical findings may be important in helping courts to adjudicate whether child abuse has taken place. The physician evaluating abused children should ensure adequate photographic documentation of visible lesions. Physicians who care for abused children should be familiar with the basic principles and techniques of clinical photography. These include good equipment, adequate lighting, and planned composition. Equally important is a working knowledge of camera equipment, film procedure, and medicolegal implications. This review outlines for the practicing physician the basic concepts and techniques of photographing abused children.

Photo documentation of injuries on children is universally recommended in cases of suspected child physical abuse. As technology improves, the ability to document physical examination findings through smartphone photography is increasingly accessible and practical. The quality of images captured on smartphones now rivals traditional photography and the integration of photo capture within the electronic medical record has led to a variety of fields adopting smartphone photo documentation for diagnosis, consult, and follow-up. However, in cases of child physical abuse, practitioners have been hesitant to adopt smartphones as a primary means of photo documentation because of concerns around image quality, privacy, and security. In this article, we discuss the technology of available smartphone cameras and current evidence regarding their use for photo documentation, use existing guidelines to propose a workflow to improve the yield of smartphone photo documentation in child physical abuse, and discuss common medicolegal concerns.

BACKGROUND: Despite the impact of physical abuse on children, it is often underdiagnosed, especially among children evaluated in emergency departments (EDs). Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) can improve the recognition of child physical abuse. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and test the usability of a natural language processing-based child abuse CDS system, known as the Child Abuse Clinical Decision Support (CA-CDS), to alert ED clinicians about high-risk injuries suggestive of abuse in infants' charts. METHODS: Informed by available evidence, a multidisciplinary team, including an expert in user design, developed the CA-CDS prototype that provided evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and management of suspected child abuse when triggered by documentation of a high-risk injury. Content was customized for medical versus nursing providers and initial versus subsequent exposure to the alert. To assess the usability of and refine the CA-CDS, we interviewed 24 clinicians from 4 EDs about their interactions with the prototype. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 5 main categories of themes emerged from the study. CA-CDS benefits included providing an extra layer of protection, providing evidence-based recommendations, and alerting the entire clinical ED team. The user-centered, workflow-compatible design included soft-stop alert configuration, editable and automatic documentation, and attention-grabbing formatting. Recommendations for improvement included consolidating content, clearer design elements, and adding a hyperlink with additional resources. Barriers to future implementation included alert fatigue, hesitancy to change, and concerns regarding documentation. Facilitators of future implementation included stakeholder buy-in, provider education, and sharing the test characteristics. On the basis of user feedback, iterative modifications were made to the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: With its user-centered design and evidence-based content, the CA-CDS can aid providers in the real-time recognition and evaluation of infant physical abuse and has the potential to reduce the number of missed cases.