ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Barriers to Adoption of a Child-Abuse Clinical Decision Support System in Emergency Departments.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Child abuse is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children. The rate of missed child abuse in general emergency departments (ED), where 85% of children are evaluated, is higher than in pediatric EDs. We sought to evaluate the impact of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child-abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the identification and evaluation of child maltreatment in a network of EDs three years after implementation. Methods: We anonymously surveyed all 196 ED attending physicians and advanced practice practitioners (APP) in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center network. The survey evaluated practitioner awareness of, attitudes toward, and changes in clinical practice prompted by the CA-CDSS. We also assessed practitioner recognition and evaluation of sentinel injuries. Results: Of the 71 practitioners (36%) who responded to the survey, 75% felt the tool raised child abuse awareness, and 72% had a face-to-face discussion with the child's nurse after receiving a CA-CDSS alert. Among APPs, 72% consulted with the attending physician after receiving an alert. Many practitioners were unaware of at least one function of the CA-CDSS; 38% did not know who completed the child abuse screen (CAS); 54% were unaware that they could view the results of the CAS in the EHR, and 69% did not recognize the clinical decision support dashboard icon. Slightly over 20% of respondents felt that the CA-CDSS limited autonomy; and 4.5% disagreed with the recommendations in the physical abuse order set, which reflects American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines. Greater than 90% of respondents correctly identified an intraoral injury and torso bruise in an infant as sentinel injuries requiring an evaluation for abuse. Conclusion: A child-abuse clinical decision support system embedded in the electronic health record was associated with communication among practitioners and was overall perceived as improving child abuse awareness in our system. Practitioners correctly recognized injuries concerning for abuse. Barriers to improving identification and evaluation of abuse include gaps in knowledge about the CA-CDSS and the presence of practitioners who disagree with the AAP recommendations for physical abuse evaluation and/or felt that clinical decision support in general limited their clinical autonomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.