Dataset Information

High prevalence of non-accidental trauma among deceased children presenting at Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Between 0.1-3% of injured children who present at a hospital emergency department ultimately die as a result of their injuries. These events are typically reported as unnatural causes of death and may result from either accidental or non-accidental trauma (NAT). Examples of the latter include trauma that is inflicted directly or resulting from neglect. Although consultation with a forensic physician is mandatory for all deceased children, the prevalence of fatal inflicted trauma or neglect among children is currently unclear.

Methods

This is a retrospective study that included children (0-18 years) who presented and died at one of the 11 Level I trauma centers in the Netherlands between January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2019. Outcomes were classified based on the conclusions of the Child Abuse and Neglect team or those of forensic pathologists and/or the court in cases referred for legally mandated autopsies. Cases in which conclusions were unavailable and there was no clear accidental cause of death were reviewed by an expert panel.

Results

The study included 175 cases of childhood death. Seventeen (9.7%) of these children died due to inflicted trauma (9.7%), 18 (10.3%) due to neglect, and 140 (80%) due to accidents. Preschool children (< 5 years old) were significantly more likely to present with injuries due to inflicted trauma and neglect compared to older children (44% versus 6%, p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 5.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66-12.65). Drowning accounted for 14 of the 18 (78%) pediatric deaths due to neglect, representing 8% of the total cases. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed on 37 (21%) of all cases of childhood death.

Conclusion

One of every five pediatric deaths in our nationwide Level I trauma center study was attributed to NAT; 44% of these deaths were the result of trauma experienced by preschool-aged children. A remarkable number of fatal drownings were due to neglect. Postmortem radiological studies and autopsies were performed in only one-fifth of all deceased children. The limited use of postmortem investigations may have resulted in missed cases of NAT, which will result in an overall underestimation of fatal NAT experienced by children.

SUBMITTER: Loos MHJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8629892 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:BackgroundPrehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers.MethodsWe used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit.ResultsWe included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92-0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%).ConclusionsBenefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.