Search

BACKGROUND Under-detection and under-reporting of child abuse remains a considerable challenge in paediatric care, with a high number of cases missed each year in Switzerland and abroad. Published data regarding the obstacles and facilitators of detecting and reporting child maltreatment among paediatric nursing and medical staff in the paediatric emergency department (PED) are scarce. Despite the existence of international guidelines, the measures taken to counteract the incomplete detection of harm done to children in paediatric care are insufficient. AIM We sought to examine up-to-date obstacles and enablers for detecting and reporting child abuse among nursing and medical staff in PED and paediatric surgery departments in Switzerland. METHODS We surveyed 421 nurses and physicians working in PEDs and on paediatric surgical wards in six large Swiss paediatric hospitals using an online questionnaire between February 1, 2017, and August 31, 2017. RESULTS The survey was returned by 261/421 (62.0%) respondents (complete n = 200, 76.6%; incomplete n = 61, 23.3%) with a preponderance of nurses (n = 150/261; 57.5%), 106/261 (40.6%) physicians, and 1/261 (0.4%) psychologists (n = 4/261; 1.5% missing profession). The stated obstacles to reporting child abuse were uncertainty about the diagnosis (n = 58/80; 72.5%), feeling unaccountable for notification (n = 28/80; 35%), uncertainty of whether reporting has any consequences (n = 5/80; 6.25%), lack of time (n = 4/80; 5%), forgetting to report (n = 2/80; 2.5%), and parental protection (n = 2/80; 2.5%) (unspecific answer, n = 4/80; 5%, multiple answers were possible, therefore items don not sum up to 100%). Even though most (n = 249/261 95.4%) respondents had previously been confronted with child abuse at/outside work, only 185/245 (75.5%) reported cases; significantly fewer nursing (n = 100/143, 69.9%) than medical staff (n = 83/99, 83.8%) (p = 0.013). Furthermore, significantly more nursing (n = 27/33; 81.8%) than medical staff (n = 6/33; 18.2%) (p = 0.005) reported a discrepancy between the number of suspected and reported cases (total 33/245 (13.5%). An overwhelming amount of participants were strongly interested in mandatory child abuse training (n= 226/242, 93.4%) and in the availability of standardised patient questionnaires and documentation forms (n = 185/243, 76.1%). CONCLUSION In line with previous studies, insufficient knowledge about and lack of confidence in detecting the signs and symptoms of child abuse were the principal obstacles to reporting maltreatment. To finally address this unacceptable gap in child abuse detection, we recommend the implementation of mandatory child protection education in all countries where no such education has been implemented in addition to the introduction of cognitive aid tools and validated screening tools to increase child abuse detection rates and ultimately prevent further harm to children.

Hintergrund: Karzinoid-Tumoren des embryonalen Mitteldarms sind seltene intestinale neuroendokrine Tumoren, bei denen zum Zeitpunkt der Diagnose häufig Metastasen vorliegen. Im Gegensatz zu Karzinoiden des Vorderdarms und Respirationstraktes sind sie nicht mit der Multiplen Endokrinen Neoplasie Typ 1 (MEN1) vergesellschaftet. Die Mechanismen ihrer Tumorigenesis sind weitgehend unbekannt. Methoden: Tumorgewebe acht sporadischer, maligner Dünndarm-Karzinoide war Objekt dieser Studie über Verlust der Heterozygotie ("Loss Of Heterozygosity" (LOH)) mit 131 fluoreszierenden Mikrosatelliten. DNA Sequenz-Analyse mit Oligonucleotid Primern, die Exon 8-11 des SMAD4/DPC4 Gens flankieren sowie immunhistochemische Färbung mit Smad4/DPC4 antikörpern wurde durchgeführt. Ergebnis: Chromosom 18 wies Deletionen in 88% der Tumoren auf. Alle außer einem Tumor hatten sowohl 18p als auch 18q verloren, in einem der Tumoren war eine kleine Region telomer zu den SMAD4/DPC4/DCC Genen auf 18q21 verloren. Andere Chromosomen waren nur in drei Tumoren betroffen. LOH auf Chromosom 11q13, dem MEN1 Lokus, wurde nicht gefunden.Sequenzierung der DNA und immunhistochemische Färbung für das SMAD4/DPC4 Gen zeigten keine Aberrationen. Diskussion: Die Funde der Chromosom 18 Deletionen weisen eindeutig auf ein entscheidendes Ereignis in der Tumorigenese von Karzinoiden des Mitteldarms hin. An der Entstehung dieser Tumoren könnte ein mutmaßliches Tumor Suppressor Gen beteiligt sein, welches auf Chromosom 18 lokalisiert ist. Dahingegen ist SMAD4/DPC4 wahrscheinlich nicht in die Tumorneogenese von Carcinois Tumoren involviert. Background: Midgut carcinoid tumors are rare malignant tumors with origin in the neuroendocrine cells of the small intestine. Due to secretion of a variety of peptide hormones and biogenic amines they cause the carcinoid syndrome. Metastases are often present at first diagnosis. Despite this, patients have a realistic chance to survive for a prolonged period (30% (unresectable/metastatic disease) -79% (non-metastatic disease) 5-year survival rate) if treated by a combination of surgery and medication. Unlike their foregut counterparts, midgut carcinoid tumors are not or rarely associated with the multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) syndrome. The genetic back-ground to tumorigenesis of these neoplasms is unknown. In contrast, the events involved in tumorigenesis of gastroenteropancreatic adenocarcinomas are better characterized with frequent mutations e.g. of the Smad4/DPC4, Smad2/MADR2/JV18-1 and DCC genes on chromosome 18. Methods: Eight metastatic midgut carcinoids were analysed by a genome-wide screening for loss of heterozygosity using 131 PCR-amplified fluorescent-labelled microsatellite markers. DNA sequence analysis using oligonucleotide primers flanking exons 8-11 of the Smad4/DPC4 gene and immunohistochemical staining with Smad4/DPC4 antibodies was performed. Results: Chromosome 18 was deleted in seven out of eight tumors (88%). All but one of these tumors had lost both 18p and 18q, the remaining tumor had lost the long arm but retained the short arm. Several other chromosomal alleles were lost in a subset of the tumors. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on chromosome 11q13, the MEN 1 locus, was not found. Smad4/DPC4 wild-type sequence and normal immunohistochemical staining for Smad4/DPC4 protein was found for all analysed tumors. Conclusions: Our finding of a high frequency of chromosome 18 deletions in 88% of the tumors strongly suggests that midgut carcinoid tumorigenesis might involve inactivation of a candidate tumor suppressor gene located in that region while Smad4/DPC4 is unlikely to be involved in that process. A more detailed analysis of the genetic events in midgut carcinoid tumors is warranted to clarify their neogenetic origin.