Cargando…

Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years

OBJECTIVE: Combined paediatric and forensic medical expertise to interpret physical findings is not available in Dutch healthcare facilities. The Dutch Expertise Centre for Child Abuse (DECCA) was founded in the conviction that this combination is essential in assessing potential physical child abus...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Rijn, Rick Robert, Affourtit, Marjo J, Karst, Wouter A, Kamphuis, Mascha, de Bock, Leonie C, van de Putte, Elise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6707647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31439611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031008
_version_ 1783445892971364352
author van Rijn, Rick Robert
Affourtit, Marjo J
Karst, Wouter A
Kamphuis, Mascha
de Bock, Leonie C
van de Putte, Elise
author_facet van Rijn, Rick Robert
Affourtit, Marjo J
Karst, Wouter A
Kamphuis, Mascha
de Bock, Leonie C
van de Putte, Elise
author_sort van Rijn, Rick Robert
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Combined paediatric and forensic medical expertise to interpret physical findings is not available in Dutch healthcare facilities. The Dutch Expertise Centre for Child Abuse (DECCA) was founded in the conviction that this combination is essential in assessing potential physical child abuse. DECCA is a collaboration between the three paediatric hospitals and the Netherlands Forensic Institute. DECCA works with Bayes’ theorem and uses likelihood ratios in their conclusions. DESIGN: We present the implementation process of DECCA and cross-sectional data of the first 4 years. PARTICIPANTS: Between 14 December 2014 and 31 December 2018, a total of 761 advisory requests were referred, all of which were included in this study. An advisee evaluation over the year 2015 was performed using a self-constructed survey to gain insight in the first experiences with DECCA. RESULTS: 761 cases were included, 381 (50.1%) boys and 361 (47.4%) girls (19 cases (2.5%) sex undisclosed). Median age was 1.5 years (range 1 day to 20 years). Paediatricians (53.1%) and child safeguarding doctors (21.9%) most frequently contacted DECCA. The two most common reasons for referral were presence of injury/skin lesions (n=592) and clinical history inconsistent with findings (n=145). The most common injuries were bruises (264) and non-skull fractures (166). Outcome of DECCA evaluation was almost certainly no or improbable child abuse in 35.7%; child abuse likely or almost certain in 24.3%, and unclear in 12%. The advisee evaluations (response rate 50%) showed that 93% experienced added value and that 100% were (very) satisfied with the advice. CONCLUSION: Data show growing interest in the expertise of DECCA through the years. DECCA seems to be a valuable addition to Dutch child protection, since advisee value the service and outcome of DECCA evaluations. In almost half of the cases, DECCA concluded that child abuse could not be substantiated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6707647
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67076472019-09-06 Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years van Rijn, Rick Robert Affourtit, Marjo J Karst, Wouter A Kamphuis, Mascha de Bock, Leonie C van de Putte, Elise BMJ Open Paediatrics OBJECTIVE: Combined paediatric and forensic medical expertise to interpret physical findings is not available in Dutch healthcare facilities. The Dutch Expertise Centre for Child Abuse (DECCA) was founded in the conviction that this combination is essential in assessing potential physical child abuse. DECCA is a collaboration between the three paediatric hospitals and the Netherlands Forensic Institute. DECCA works with Bayes’ theorem and uses likelihood ratios in their conclusions. DESIGN: We present the implementation process of DECCA and cross-sectional data of the first 4 years. PARTICIPANTS: Between 14 December 2014 and 31 December 2018, a total of 761 advisory requests were referred, all of which were included in this study. An advisee evaluation over the year 2015 was performed using a self-constructed survey to gain insight in the first experiences with DECCA. RESULTS: 761 cases were included, 381 (50.1%) boys and 361 (47.4%) girls (19 cases (2.5%) sex undisclosed). Median age was 1.5 years (range 1 day to 20 years). Paediatricians (53.1%) and child safeguarding doctors (21.9%) most frequently contacted DECCA. The two most common reasons for referral were presence of injury/skin lesions (n=592) and clinical history inconsistent with findings (n=145). The most common injuries were bruises (264) and non-skull fractures (166). Outcome of DECCA evaluation was almost certainly no or improbable child abuse in 35.7%; child abuse likely or almost certain in 24.3%, and unclear in 12%. The advisee evaluations (response rate 50%) showed that 93% experienced added value and that 100% were (very) satisfied with the advice. CONCLUSION: Data show growing interest in the expertise of DECCA through the years. DECCA seems to be a valuable addition to Dutch child protection, since advisee value the service and outcome of DECCA evaluations. In almost half of the cases, DECCA concluded that child abuse could not be substantiated. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6707647/ /pubmed/31439611 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031008 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Paediatrics
van Rijn, Rick Robert
Affourtit, Marjo J
Karst, Wouter A
Kamphuis, Mascha
de Bock, Leonie C
van de Putte, Elise
Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
title Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
title_full Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
title_fullStr Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
title_full_unstemmed Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
title_short Implementation of the Dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
title_sort implementation of the dutch expertise centre for child abuse: descriptive data from the first 4 years
topic Paediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6707647/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31439611
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031008
work_keys_str_mv AT vanrijnrickrobert implementationofthedutchexpertisecentreforchildabusedescriptivedatafromthefirst4years
AT affourtitmarjoj implementationofthedutchexpertisecentreforchildabusedescriptivedatafromthefirst4years
AT karstwoutera implementationofthedutchexpertisecentreforchildabusedescriptivedatafromthefirst4years
AT kamphuismascha implementationofthedutchexpertisecentreforchildabusedescriptivedatafromthefirst4years
AT debockleoniec implementationofthedutchexpertisecentreforchildabusedescriptivedatafromthefirst4years
AT vandeputteelise implementationofthedutchexpertisecentreforchildabusedescriptivedatafromthefirst4years