Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

A screening protocol for child abuse at out-of-hours primary care locations: a descriptive study

Authors: Maartje C. M. Schouten, Henk F. van Stel, Theo J. M. Verheij, Edward E. S. Nieuwenhuis, Elise M. van de Putte

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Child abuse is often unrecognized at out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC) services. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of the screening instrument SPUTOVAMO-R2 for child abuse (checklist), followed by a structured approach (reporting code), at OOH-PC services. The reporting code with five steps should ensure consistent action in case of a suspicion.

Methods

All children attending one of the five participating OOH-PC services in the region of Utrecht, the Netherlands, in a year time, were included. The checklist is an obligatory field in the electronic patient file and was filled in for all children. In case of a positive checklist, the steps in the reporting code were followed. Additionally, the case was evaluated in a multidisciplinary team to determine the probability of child abuse.

Results

The checklist was filled in for 50671 children; 108 (0.2 %) were positive. The multidisciplinary team diagnosed child abuse in 24 (22 %) of the 108 positive checklists, and no child abuse in 36 (33 %). Emotional neglect was the most frequent type of abuse diagnosed. For all abused children, care was implemented according to the protocol. The most frequent care given was a referral to the hospital (N = 7) or contact with child’s own general practitioner (N = 6).

Conclusion

A checklist followed by a reporting code guarantees consistent actions and care for children with a suspicion of child abuse. The percentage of positive checklists is lower than expected. Validity of the checklist should be assessed in a diagnostic study.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Alink L, van IJzendoorn R, Bakermans-Kranenburg M, et al. De Tweede Nationale Prevalentiestudie Mishandeling van Kinderen en Jeugdigen (NPM-2010). Kindermishandeling in Nederland Anno 2010 (in Dutch). Den Haag: Ministerie van Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport; 2011.
2.
Leeb RT, Paulozzi LJ, Melanson C, et al. Child maltreatment surveillance: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements. Version 1.0. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2008.
3.
4.
Dube SR, Felitti VJ, Dong M, et al. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on health problems: evidence from four birth cohorts dating back to 1900. Prev Med. 2003;37(3):268–77.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245–58.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Verheij R, van den Hoogen H. Vooral kinderen op de huisartsenpost. Een verkenning van de mogelijkheden van een registratienetwerk van huisartsenposten (in Dutch). Huisarts en Wetenschap. 2006;49:337–8.CrossRef
7.
Sittig JS. Child abuse: the value of systematic screening at Emergency Rooms [dissertation]. Ridderprint BV: Ridderkerk; 2015.
8.
Goren SS, Raat AM, Broekhuijsen-van Henten DM, et al. Child abuse often not recognized in family practice. Retrospective study in abused kids. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009;153(6):222–7.PubMed
9.
Louwers EC, Korfage IJ, Affourtit MJ, et al. Effects of systematic screening and detection of child abuse in emergency departments. Pediatrics. 2012;130(3):457–64.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Louwers EC, Affourtit MJ, Moll HA, et al. Screening for child abuse at emergency departments: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(3):214–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Pless IB, Sibald AD, Smith MA, Russell MD. A reappraisal of the frequency of child abuse seen in pediatric emergency rooms. Child Abuse Negl. 1987;11(2):193–200.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Inspectie voor Gezondheidszorg. Huisartsenposten onvoldoende alert op kindermishandeling. Inventariserend onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van de signalering van kindermishandeling op huisartsenposten (in Dutch). Den Haag: Ministerie van Volksgezondheid Welzijn en Sport; 2010.
13.
14.
KNMG-meldcode Kindermishandeling en huiselijk geweld, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst; 2014.
15.
Model reporting code Domestic Violence and Child Abuse. Action plan for responding to signs of domestic violence and child abuse. Translation of the revised Dutch version from 2013. Den Haag: Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports; 2013.
16.
Abbing HR. Medical confidentiality and patient safety: reporting procedures. Eur J Health Law. 2014;21(3):245–59.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Teeuw AH, Derkx BH, Koster WA, van Rijn RR. Educational paper: Detection of child abuse and neglect at the emergency room. Eur J Pediatr. 2012;171(6):877–85.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Primair Huisartsenposten. Stichting Primair Huisartsenposten Jaarverslag 2012 (in Dutch). 2012.
20.
Smeekens AE, Broekhuijsen-van Henten DM, Sittig JS, et al. Successful e-learning programme on the detection of child abuse in emergency departments: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96(4):330–4.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sittig JS, Uiterwaal CS, Moons KG, et al. Value of systematic detection of physical child abuse at emergency rooms: a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e010788.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Louwers EC, Korfage IJ, Affourtit MJ, et al. Accuracy of a screening instrument to identify potential child abuse in emergency departments. Child Abuse Negl. 2014;38(7):1275–81.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Flaherty EG, Sege RD, Griffith J, et al. From suspicion of physical child abuse to reporting: primary care clinician decision-making. Pediatrics. 2008;122(3):611–9.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Advies en Meldpunt Kindermishandeling. AMK in cijfers 2013 (in Dutch). Utrecht: Jeugdzorg Nederland; 2013.
Metadata
Title
A screening protocol for child abuse at out-of-hours primary care locations: a descriptive study
Authors
Maartje C. M. Schouten
Henk F. van Stel
Theo J. M. Verheij
Edward E. S. Nieuwenhuis
Elise M. van de Putte
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-016-0554-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Primary Care 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Brief encounters: what do primary care professionals contribute to peoples’ self-care support network for long-term conditions? A mixed methods study

Research article

Advising vaccinations for the elderly: a cross-sectional survey on differences between general practitioners and physician assistants in Germany

Research article

An explorative qualitative study on acceptability of physical activity assessment instruments among primary care professionals in southern Sydney

Research article

Perceptions of primary care staff on a regional data quality intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative study

Research article

Collaborative care for anxiety disorders in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research article

Prevalence of cramps in patients over the age of 60 in primary care : a cross sectional study