Article

Primary care pediatricians' experience, comfort and competence in the evaluation and management of child maltreatment: do we need child abuse experts?

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Child Protection, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Child abuse & neglect (Impact Factor: 2.34). 03/2009; 33(2):76-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We assessed the self-reported experience, comfort and competence of primary care pediatricians in evaluating and managing child maltreatment (CM), in rendering opinions regarding the likelihood of CM, and in providing court testimony. We examined pediatricians' need for expert consultation when evaluating possible maltreatment.
A questionnaire was mailed to 520 randomly selected AAP members. Pediatricians were asked how frequently they evaluated and reported children for suspected maltreatment, and whether child abuse pediatricians were available to and used by them. Pediatricians were asked to rate their knowledge, comfort and competence in the management of CM. Demographic information was also gathered. Pediatricians' experience with CM, their comfort, self-reported competence, and need for expert assistance is described. Logistic regression was used to assess factors that predicted pediatricians' sense of competence while controlling for covariates found to be significant in bivariate analyses.
One hundred forty-seven questionnaires were eligible for analysis. The majority of respondents had little experience evaluating and reporting suspected CM, and was interested in having expert consultation. While pediatricians often felt competent in conducting medical exams for suspected maltreatment, they felt less competent in rendering a definitive opinion, and did not generally feel competent to testify in court. Sense of competence was particularly low for sexual abuse. Increased practice experience and more courses in CM led to increased sense of competence in some areas.
Pediatricians acknowledged many limitations to providing care to maltreated children, and expressed interest in subspecialist input.
These findings add additional support to the American Board of Pediatrics' decision to create a Child Abuse Pediatrics subspecialty. The findings also indicate a need to ensure funding for fellowship training programs in this field.

Full-text

Available from: Wendy G Lane, Apr 18, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
122 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neglect is a pervasive form of child maltreatment. Health care practitioners often struggle with deciding when an action (or lack of action) by a caregiver constitutes inadequate care and is neglectful. The present article discusses the epidemiology, risk factors and outcomes of neglect. In addition, assessment using objective markers, such as harm and potential harm, in the identification of neglect is described, and unique factors that impact assessing and addressing issues of neglect in the clinical setting are discussed. Practical strategies for intervening in cases of neglect are discussed, including how to engage families in which there are concerns for neglect, mandated reporting, working collaboratively with children's services, ongoing monitoring of families, and how health care professionals can effectively engage in neglect prevention and advocacy.
    Paediatrics & child health 10/2013; 18(8):e39-e43. · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To determine how well experts agree when assessing child sexual abuse cases. METHODS: A total of twelve physician subjects were recruited and voluntarily enrolled from an existing peer review network. Experts from the network had been chosen for their experience in the field and their affiliation with children's advocacy centers. Each expert submitted three cases of prepubertal female genital examinations clearly demonstrable of the case findings. Submitted cases included demographics, history, physical and genital exam findings, photodocumentation, and diagnosis. Experts reviewed each submitted case and labeled the case negative for physical finding(s), positive for physical finding(s), or indeterminate. Cases were analyzed to determine the level of agreement. RESULTS: Thirty-six cases were submitted for use in this study; one case was excluded prior to starting the review process. After all experts completed their reviews the authors reviewed the cases and results. Two additional cases were excluded, one due to poor quality photodocumentation and one for not meeting the study criteria. Thirty-three cases were used for data analysis. All 12 expert reviewers agreed in 15 of the cases. Overall, in 22 of 33 (67%) cases at least 11 of the 12 reviewers agreed with the original diagnosis. Six of 33 (18%) cases had variable agreement (8-10 reviewers agreed with original diagnosis) among reviewers; 5 of 33 (15%) cases had poor or mixed agreement (7 or less reviewers agreed with original diagnosis). CONCLUSIONS: Experts exhibit consensus in cases where the findings clearly are normal and abnormal, but demonstrate much more variability in cases where the diagnostic decisions are less obvious. Most of the diagnostic variability is due to interpretation of the findings as normal, abnormal or indeterminate, not on the perception of the examination findings themselves. More research should be done to develop a national consensus on the accurate interpretation of anogenital examination findings. Photographic image quality plays an important role in this quality review process and universally needs to be improved.
    Child abuse & neglect 02/2013; 37(7). DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.01.002 · 2.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Child abuse and neglect are inherently challenging problems for pediatricians. It is hoped that this article makes this work easier, albeit not easy, and highlights the many ways that pediatricians can make a valuable difference in the lives of these vulnerable children and their families.
    Pediatric Clinics of North America 10/2014; 61(5):865–871. DOI:10.1016/j.pcl.2014.06.001 · 2.20 Impact Factor