Search

Objective: Assess the association between caregiver supervision and acute unintentional injury in young children; evaluate whether lower levels of supervision result in more severe injury., Methods: A case cross-over study was conducted. Parents of children aged ≤4 years whose injuries required emergency department (ED sample) treatment or admission to the hospital (inpatient sample) were interviewed. Information on supervision (3 dimensions: proximity, attention, continuity) at the time of injury and 1 h before the injury (control time) was collected. An overall supervision score was created; a higher score indicates closer supervision. Hospital admission served as a proxy for injury severity. ORs and 95% CIs were calculated., Results: Interviews were completed by 222 participants; 50 (23%) were in the inpatient sample. For each supervision dimension the inpatient sample had higher odds of injury, indicating effect modification requiring separate analyses for inpatient and ED samples. For both samples, proximity 'beyond reach' was associated with the highest odds of injury; compared with 1 h before injury, children were more likely to be beyond reach of their caregiver at the time of injury (inpatient sample: OR 11.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 48.8; ED sample: OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.9). Children with lower supervision scores had the greatest odds of injury (inpatient sample: OR 8.0, 95% CI 2.4 to 26.6; ED sample: OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.6)., Conclusions: Lower levels of adult supervision are associated with higher odds of more severe injury in young children. Proximity is the most important supervision dimension for reducing injury risk., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Most unintentional injury deaths among young children result from inadequate supervision or failure by caregivers to protect the child from potential hazards. Determining whether inadequate supervision or failure to protect could be classified as child neglect is a component of child death review (CDR) in most states. However, establishing that an unintentional injury death was neglect related can be challenging as differing definitions, lack of standards regarding supervision, and changing norms make consensus difficult. The purpose of this study was to assess CDR team members' categorisation of the extent to which unintentional injury deaths were neglect related. CDR team members were surveyed and asked to classify 20 vignettes-presented in 10 pairs-that described the circumstances of unintentional injury deaths among children. Vignette pairs differed by an attribute that might affect classification, such as poverty or intent. Categories for classifying vignettes were: (1) caregiver not responsible/not neglect related; (2) some caregiver responsibility/somewhat neglect related; (3) caregiver responsible /definitely neglect related. CDR team members from five states (287) completed surveys. Respondents assigned the child's caregiver at least some responsibility for the death in 18 vignettes (90%). A majority of respondents classified the caregiver as definitely responsible for the child's death in eight vignettes (40%). This study documents attributes that influence CDR team members' decisions when assessing caregiver responsibility in unintentional injury deaths, including supervision, intent, failure to use safety devices, and a pattern of previous neglectful behaviour. The findings offer insight for incorporating injury prevention into CDR more effectively.

Objective Assess the association between caregiver supervision and acute unintentional injury in young children; evaluate whether lower levels of supervision result in more severe injury. Methods A case cross-over study was conducted. Parents of children aged ≤4 years whose injuries required emergency department (ED sample) treatment or admission to the hospital (inpatient sample) were interviewed. Information on supervision (3 dimensions: proximity, attention, continuity) at the time of injury and 1 h before the injury (control time) was collected. An overall supervision score was created; a higher score indicates closer supervision. Hospital admission served as a proxy for injury severity. ORs and 95% CIs were calculated. Results Interviews were completed by 222 participants; 50 (23%) were in the inpatient sample. For each supervision dimension the inpatient sample had higher odds of injury, indicating effect modification requiring separate analyses for inpatient and ED samples. For both samples, proximity ‘beyond reach' was associated with the highest odds of injury; compared with 1 h before injury, children were more likely to be beyond reach of their caregiver at the time of injury (inpatient sample: OR 11.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 48.8; ED sample: OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.9). Children with lower supervision scores had the greatest odds of injury (inpatient sample: OR 8.0, 95% CI 2.4 to 26.6; ED sample: OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.6). Conclusions Lower levels of adult supervision are associated with higher odds of more severe injury in young children. Proximity is the most important supervision dimension for reducing injury risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most unintentional injury deaths among young children result from inadequate supervision or failure bycaregivers to protect the child from potential hazards. Determining whether inadequate supervision or failure to protect could be classified as child neglect is a component of child death review (CDR) in most states. However, establishing that an unintentional injury death was neglect related can be challenging as differing definitions, lack of standards regarding supervision, and changing norms make consensus difficult. The purpose of this study was to assess CDR team members' categorisation of the extent to which unintentional injury deaths were neglect related. CDR team members were surveyed and asked to classify 20 vignettesdpresented in 10 pairsdthat described the circumstances of unintentional injury deaths among children. Vignette pairs differed by an attribute that might affect classification, such as poverty or intent. Categories for classifying vignettes were: (1) caregiver not responsible/not neglect related; (2) some caregiver responsibility/somewhat neglect related; (3) caregiver responsible /definitely neglect related. CDR team members from five states (287) completed surveys. Respondents assigned the child's caregiver at least some responsibility for the death in 18 vignettes (90%). A majority of respondents classified the caregiver as definitely responsible for the child's death in eight vignettes (40%). This study documents attributes that influence CDR team members' decisions when assessing caregiver responsibility in unintentional injury deaths, including supervision, intent, failure to use safety devices, and a pattern of previous neglectful behaviour. The findings offer insight for incorporating injury prevention into CDR more effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]