Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

EM TopicsMandatory reporting and child protection

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.

high10 referencesUpdated 26 July 202626 min readVerification in progress

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Target exams

ACEMFRCEMABEMFRCPCCCFPEMEBEEM

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
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

ACEMFRCEMABEMFRCPCCCFPEMEBEEM

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
The one-line answer

Child protection in the ED rests on two duties held in tension at every bedside. Recognise abuse through its sentinel injuries — any bruise in a non-mobile infant, the TEN-4-FACEsp positive sites (torso, ear, neck, frenulum, angle of jaw, fleshy cheek, eyelid, subconjunctiva, a patterned mark), fractures of different ages, the classic metaphyseal lesion and posterior rib fracture, and the subdural–retinal–encephalopathy triad of abusive head trauma. Respond with the mandatory report: the threshold is a reasonable belief of significant harm — no certainty, no proof, no parental consent required — and the report is made before the family is confronted and before the investigation is complete. The validated screen is TEN-4-FACEsp (Pierce 2021, sensitivity 95.6 percent); the maxim is those who do not cruise rarely bruise.[1]

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]

Emergency Medicine Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this topic. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Emergency Medicine fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References10ShowHide
  1. [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. [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. [3]Kemp AM, Dunstan F, Harrison S, et al. Patterns of skeletal fractures in child abuse: systematic review. BMJ, 2008.PMID 18832412
  4. [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. [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. [6]Kellogg N. The evaluation of sexual abuse in children. Pediatrics, 2005.PMID 16061610
  7. [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. [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. [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. [10]Christian CW, et al. The evaluation of suspected child physical abuse. Pediatrics, 2015.PMID 25917988
Emergency Medicine Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Emergency Medicine library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousMajor trauma resuscitation — the team-based systematic approachMajor trauma resuscitationNextMass-gathering and event medicine — PICE classification, casualty prediction and event medical planningMass-gathering and event medicine

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