EM · Mandatory reporting and child protection
Mandatory reporting and child protection in the emergency department
Also known as Child abuse recognition · Non-accidental injury · Child maltreatment · Mandatory reporting · Safeguarding referral · Forensic chain of custody · Child sexual abuse examination · Fabricated or induced illness
Mandatory reporting and child protection in the emergency department — recognition of child abuse through the sentinel injuries (bruising in a non-mobile infant, the inconsistent or changing history, delay in presentation, fractures of different ages, the classic metaphyseal lesion and posterior rib fractures, and abusive head trauma with the subdural–retinal–encephalopathy triad), the validated TEN-4-FACEsp bruising clinical decision rule (Pierce 2021, sensitivity 95.6 percent), child sexual abuse recognition with the STI screen, the time-windowed forensic examination and post-exposure prophylaxis (ceftriaxone, azithromycin, metronidazole, levonorgestrel, HIV PEP), the differential distinguished from accidental injury, cultural practices and fabricated or induced illness, the mandatory reporting legal duty and its reasonable-belief threshold, the forensic chain of custody, and the safeguarding referral. ACEM-primary, globally tagged.
On this page
Related topics
- Consent, capacity and the medico-legal framework in the emergency department
- Paediatric trauma — the modified approach
- Breaking bad news and communication in the emergency department — the SPIKES framework
- Paediatric fever and serious bacterial illness (the febrile child in the emergency department)
- Mental health and behavioural emergencies
Study tools
Your progress
Saved on this device.
Target exams
Red flags
- Bruising in a non-mobile infant is abuse until proven otherwise — those who do not cruise rarely bruise, and any bruise in an infant 4 months of age or younger triggers the TEN-4-FACEsp rule
- An injury whose mechanism is inconsistent with the child's developmental stage, or a history that changes between caregivers or over time, is a sentinel for inflicted injury
- A fracture of different age to the presenting injury, a posterior rib fracture, or a classic metaphyseal lesion in an infant carries high specificity for non-accidental injury
- A prepubertal child with Neisseria gonorrhoeae, syphilis, or Trichomonas vaginalis (beyond perinatal acquisition) has been sexually abused until proven otherwise
- A mandatory report requires a reasonable belief of significant harm — neither the parents' consent nor diagnostic certainty is required, and notifying the suspected perpetrator can place the child at further risk
- A break in the chain of custody renders forensic evidence inadmissible — document, label, seal, and sign every specimen at every transfer
Meet the patient
A 9-week-old boy is brought to the ED at 11 pm on a Sunday with a 2 cm bruise over the fleshy cheek. His mother says she found it after a sleep, five hours earlier. He is afebrile, feeding well, developmentally normal, and there are no other injuries on first look. The cheek is a FACES site and he is under four months — TEN-4-FACEsp is positive before you have finished undressing him.[1]
The two questions that decide his next hour are the two that decide every safeguarding case: is this a sentinel injury? (the rule answers in seconds) and have I made the report? (the law answers on a reasonable belief, not a verdict). Hold those two questions and everything below slots into place.[1]
References10ShowHide
- [1]Pierce MC, Kaczor K, Lorenz DJ, et al. Validation of a Clinical Decision Rule to Predict Abuse in Young Children Based on Bruising Characteristics. JAMA Netw Open, 2021.PMID 33852003
- [2]Pierce MC, Kaczor K, Aldridge S, O'Flynn J, Lorenz DJ. Bruising characteristics discriminating physical child abuse from accidental trauma. Pediatrics, 2010.PMID 19969620
- [3]Kemp AM, Dunstan F, Harrison S, et al. Patterns of skeletal fractures in child abuse: systematic review. BMJ, 2008.PMID 18832412
- [4]Adams JA, Kellogg ND, Farst KJ, Harper NS, Palusci VJ, Frasier LD, Levitt CJ, Shapiro RA, Moles RL, Starling SP. Updated Guidelines for the Medical Assessment and Care of Children Who May Have Been Sexually Abused. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol, 2016.PMID 26220352
- [5]Maguire S, Pickerd N, Farewell D, et al. Which clinical features distinguish inflicted from non-inflicted brain injury? A systematic review. Arch Dis Child, 2009.PMID 19531526
- [6]Kellogg N. The evaluation of sexual abuse in children. Pediatrics, 2005.PMID 16061610
- [7]Maguire S, Hunter B, Hunter L, Sibert JR, Mann M, Kemp AM. Diagnosing abuse: a systematic review of torn frenum and other intra-oral injuries. Arch Dis Child, 2007.PMID 17468129
- [8]Deye KP, Berger RP, Lindberg DM. Occult abusive injuries in infants with apparently isolated skull fractures. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2013.PMID 23694887
- [9]Wood JN, Henry MK, Berger RP, et al. Use and Utility of Skeletal Surveys to Evaluate for Occult Fractures in Young Injured Children. Acad Pediatr, 2019.PMID 30121318
- [10]Christian CW, et al. The evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics, 2015.PMID 25917988