Bennett C Verity, Hollén Linda, Wilkins David, Emond Alan, Kemp Alison
Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, CF14 4YS, UK; CASCADE, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, CF10 3BD, UK.
Centre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Burns. 2023 Jun;49(4):941-950. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2022.07.014. Epub 2022 Jul 28.
Burns are common childhood injuries and 10-20% are associated with maltreatment. This prospective before/after study investigated the impact of introducing the BuRN-Tool (a child maltreatment clinical prediction tool), on actions taken by children's social care department (CSC). Before introduction (pre-intervention): we collected standardised data on cause and characteristics of burns, in four regional hospitals. A BuRN-Tool-score was calculated retrospectively pre-intervention and by the attending clinician post-intervention. CSC involvement and actions taken relative to BuRN-Tool-score were compared pre- and post-BuRN-Tool. Data were collected for 1688 children from 17 local authorities. The percentage that received a CSC action decreased post-BuRN-Tool (pre: 58.0%, 51/88; post: 37.5%, 33/88, p = 0.007). A greater percentage of cases with a BuRN-Tool-score of ≥ 3 had a CSC action, than those with a BuRN-Tool-score 3, pre-intervention (≥3 70.0%, 35/50; = 0.04) and post-intervention (≥3 50.0%, 21/42; = 0.01). Children with a BuRN-Tool-score ≥ 3 but no contact/referral recorded by CSC for the burn, and those who had a contact/referral but no action taken, were significantly more likely than those scoring 3 to have new CSC involvement within six months following the burn. The BuRN-Tool-score ≥ 3 has the potential to alert clinicians to maltreatment concerns.
烧伤是儿童常见的损伤,其中10%-20%与虐待有关。这项前瞻性前后对照研究调查了引入烧伤工具(一种儿童虐待临床预测工具)对儿童社会关怀部门(CSC)采取行动的影响。在引入之前(干预前):我们在四家地区医院收集了关于烧伤原因和特征的标准化数据。干预前回顾性计算烧伤工具评分,干预后由主治医生计算评分。比较了烧伤工具前后CSC的参与情况以及相对于烧伤工具评分所采取的行动。收集了来自17个地方当局的1688名儿童的数据。烧伤工具引入后接受CSC行动的百分比下降(干预前:58.0%,51/88;干预后:37.5%,33/88,p = 0.007)。与烧伤工具评分<3的病例相比,干预前(≥3 70.0%,35/50;p = 0.04)和干预后(≥3 50.0%,21/42;p = 0.01),烧伤工具评分≥3的病例有CSC行动的比例更高。烧伤工具评分≥3但CSC未记录烧伤接触/转诊的儿童,以及那些有接触/转诊但未采取行动的儿童,比评分<3的儿童在烧伤后六个月内更有可能有CSC新的介入。烧伤工具评分≥3有可能提醒临床医生关注虐待问题。