What Do Child Abuse and Neglect Medical Evaluation Consultation Notes Tell Us?

Introduction

Child maltreatment is a common, serious, and costly problem in the United States. One in seven children experiences physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and/or neglect each year, resulting in 1,840 fatalities in 2019 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). In addition to suffering immediate physical, emotional, and/or psychological injuries, children who experience maltreatment face long-term consequences that impact their health and well-being. Child maltreatment is more likely to occur when a family’s stressors and risks outweigh their supports and protective factors (Belsky, 1993). Examining these factors in context is crucial. A developmental-contextual approach to the ecology of child maltreatment considers the interaction of multiple factors at multiple contextual levels (e.g., developmental, demographic, immediate-situational) that may increase the likelihood of child abuse and neglect (Belsky, 1993; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Approaching the problem of child maltreatment with a developmental-contextual ecological approach and an understanding of the individual- and family-level risk and protective factors involved allows medical providers a broader view of families’ experiences. It also enables them to engage with other services in a collaborative, multi-system response.

Given the potential serious long-term effects, children who are suspected to have been maltreated require specialized, multidisciplinary care that takes contextual factors into consideration. In their efforts to perform medical evaluations for concerns of child maltreatment, child abuse and neglect (CAN) medical providers elicit social history and risk factors in addition to past medical and family history and presenting issues. Evaluations usually include obtaining histories from the child’s caregiver/s who report on social drivers of health, family and caregiver networks, family medical history, and risk factors such as interpersonal violence, criminal justice system involvement, and substance use. Additional histories may also be provided by social workers and law enforcement if they are involved. During outpatient visits, the child also undergoes a diagnostic interview. Child abuse and neglect (CAN) medical providers perform medical record reviews and physical examinations for children referred for abuse and neglect concerns, including laboratory tests, radiographic tests, and photo documentation as needed. They also provide referrals to other pediatric subspecialties such as mental health, community support, and prevention programs. CAN medical providers participate in multidisciplinary teams which may include community agencies investigating and managing abuse and neglect cases. They may also be asked to provide expert testimony (Block & Palusci, 2006). Additionally, CAN medical clinics develop and coordinate care plans for children and their families to mitigate factors that can contribute to poor outcomes.

Increasingly, this information from medical evaluations is being captured within electronic health records (EHR). These clinical notes are a rich source of information on child- and family-level factors and social drivers that may directly contribute to both the incidence of maltreatment and treatment outcomes. Such information could be extremely helpful in improving quality of care and prevention and detection of child abuse. However, given the intended purpose of these notes, it can be difficult to derive discrete data elements in a consistent and reliable manner.

Limited research has thoroughly examined the notes documented in CAN medical clinics. One such effort examined inpatient medical notes from children younger than five years who had sustained one of three specific injury types that could be suspicious for physical abuse (traumatic brain injury, long bone fracture, and skull fracture) (Olson et. al., 2018). Through qualitative content analysis, the researchers found rich social histories contained in the 730 sets of inpatient medical consultation notes provided by 32 board-certified pediatricians from 23 child abuse programs in the United States. This study provides an example of the utility of qualitatively coding CAN medical provider notes, but it is limited in the scope of developmental stages and types of maltreatment it examined.

In the current study, we expanded Olson et al.’s (2018) work by creating a coding system for abstracting and examining all aspects of comprehensive medical evaluation notes. We included children of all ages, both inpatient and outpatient records, and all types of suspected maltreatment including physical, sexual, emotional, and medical abuse, as well as neglect. We evaluated over 1,400 notes involving children and adolescents 0-17 years of age who were assessed at a hospital-based CAN medical clinic. The information in the notes was gathered through interviews by the care team using a structured template, but the notes themselves were stored without any structure in place to allow for data to be easily extracted. Here, we provide a detailed description of our protocol and considerations for developing and implementing a coding system designed to assess case characteristics, such as training and supervising coders to obtain the optimal data. We present baseline descriptive data to demonstrate the utility of variables extracted from both structured EHR data and clinical notes. Finally, we provide recommendations for further research using these methods.

Methods

Results

Demographics

Age, sex, and race/ethnicity (Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and Other), and health insurance type (Medicaid and others) of the focal child were coded from the child’s electronic health record. Our sample included 1,397 unique identifiable children (see Figure 1 for flow diagram). Table 1 presents the distribution of child demographic characteristics. There were more girls (61.7%) than boys (38.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children were represented at a higher proportion (57.3%) than Hispanic (21.5%) or non-Hispanic White children (13.9%). The youngest children (ages 0-3) made up 27% of the sample. Most children (70.7%) were insured by Medicaid. More girls were in the 12-17 years group (80.0%) than in the other two age groups (54.4% for 0-3-year-olds and 57.5% for 4-11-year-olds). In addition, a lower percentage of children 12-17 years old (64.0%) were enrolled in Medicaid than other age groups (78.4% for 0-3-year-olds and 69.6% for 4-11-year-olds).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Sample Flow Diagram

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1

Sample Demographic Characteristics

Discussion

Child abuse and neglect medical providers who perform medical evaluations assess multiple factors across multiple contextual levels and conduct multi-disciplinary peer review of cases to determine the level of clinical concern maltreatment. In this study, we report the development of a qualitative coding system to extract information from child abuse and neglect medical evaluation clinic notes. Using the system developed by an interdisciplinary team to capture individual and family-level risk factors, our coders’ agreement coefficients were high overall, ranging from 0.84 to 0.99. This study demonstrates the development and implementation of the coding system and highlights the potential value of extracting variables to assess case characteristics and patterns from medical provider notes. Data collected in this manner, while effortful and time-consuming, can help guide best clinical practices and further research in child maltreatment prevention and treatment.

Assessing aggregate information coded from medical provider notes provides a useful overview of trends in cases evaluated for child abuse and neglect, as demonstrated by previously published studies that have similarly extracted information from child abuse pediatrician (CAP) case notes. Coded data have been used by researchers to identify different notetaking approaches used by CAPs (Keenan & Campbell, 2015), to provide descriptive data on the incidence of child abuse and neglect cases and subsequent interventions in the Netherlands (Teeuw et al., 2017), to investigate legal consequences of child abuse (Hendrix et al., 2020), and to describe medical consultations by CAPs in a hospital setting in the U.S. (Hicks et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2021). While previous studies were conducted primarily by medical professionals, our interdisciplinary team included diverse perspectives from researchers in health policy, public health, social work, and developmental psychology, in addition to medical providers. Our study builds upon previous work by including a substantial number of adolescent cases, taking a developmental-contextual risk and resilience approach, and including measures of cumulative risk at the individual and family level. In addition, this is the first study, to our knowledge, that includes detailed information on the development and implementation of the coding system used to extract data from CAN medical evaluation notes. We hope that by documenting our process and the coding materials, it will enable future research teams to use these methods and reduce costs and time for conducting related research.

Like previous studies in the U.S., the expert panel of CAN medical providers in the current study rated fewer than half of total referred cases as clear and confirmed or probable for any type of maltreatment. In fact, the overall rate in our study (33%) was lower than previous studies rating confirmed abuse cases (Hendrix et al., 2020; Hicks et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2021). This reflects variability across different medical centers in terms of percentage of cases assessed to have a low versus high likelihood of abuse, as discussed by Johnson et al. (2021). In the current study, there were very few cases assessing medical neglect or emotional abuse, which were not examined in the studies above.

To situate our findings in a developmental-contextual framework (Belsky, 1993), we presented the results by age group (0-3 year-olds, 4-11 year-olds, and 12-17 year-old adolescents). Our findings indicate that the youngest children were evaluated at higher rates than older children. They had the highest percentages for evaluation of physical maltreatment and neglect, and their notes documented several risk factors, such as housing insecurity and mental health issues, at rates higher than those observed among older children. However, the youngest children also had the highest rate for a clinical concern of “unknown” or “unlikely or no”. Children under age four are particularly vulnerable to experiencing maltreatment as they rely on caregivers to provide nearly all their needs (Conrad□Hiebner et al., 2019). Young children are unable to protect themselves and are largely unable to communicate concerns of physical injuries or neglect to an adult. Thus, young children represent a disproportionate percentage of victims and a unique population for early identification and prevention of maltreatment efforts. On the other hand, the adolescents in the 12-17 age group were evaluated most frequently for sex-related abuse and had the highest rates of clear and confirmed sex-related abuse. This mirrors research indicating that the risk of child sexual abuse increases with age, particularly in adolescence (Putnam, 2003), with a rise in victimization with each additional year from 15 to 17 (Finkelhor et al., 2014). Further, unlike young children, adolescents can vocalize concerns, and to some extent, advocate for their own needs.

Most of the individual-level risk factors coded from medical providers’ notes did not apply to the children under age four (e.g., ADHD, anxiety, depression, substance use). The highest rates of individual risk factors were among adolescents. One in five adolescents had reported diagnosis of ADHD, which is higher than the 13.6% national prevalence rate for 12-17-year-olds (Danielson et al., 2021). Depression and anxiety typically increase with age (Ghandour et al., 2019), and the prevalence of depression (20%) in our adolescent sample is much higher than that in the general population of children (4.9%) aged 6-17 years (Bitsko et al., 2018). Further, anxiety has usually been found to be more prevalent than depression (Bitsko et al., 2018; Ghandour et al., 2019), while we found contrary results. Sixteen percent of adolescents’ case notes also mentioned suicidal behavior. Overall, the 12-17-year-old group had the greatest number of individual risk factors. Future research should focus on adolescence as a particular time of mental health risks among those who have experienced maltreatment.

Family-level risk factors were less dependent on a child’s age than child-level risk factors. We found that almost half (47%) of all children had a history of domestic violence in the home. Parental history of victimization, parent mental health issues, and parent substance use were risk factors present in about a quarter of cases. The notes documented multiple family risk factors more often than individual factors. Consistent with prior studies, cases with a high concern for maltreatment often presented with family-level risk factors, including a history of experiencing domestic violence, parental mental health issues, parental history of victimization, and parental substance use (Coulter & Mercado-Crespo, 2015; Dubowitz et al., 2011; Kelley et al., 2015; Victor et al., 2018). These risk factors often co-occur in a family and may cumulatively contribute to children’s adverse outcomes (Horwitz et al., 2011; Patwardhan et al., 2017).

An understanding of the contextual information related to potential incidents of abuse or neglect is crucial when researching, diagnosing, and treating child maltreatment. It is important to note, however, that there is some evidence that inclusion of social information may influence diagnosis in child maltreatment cases. Recent qualitative research suggests that the inclusion of social information in consultation notes may influence medical diagnoses regarding abuse. Keenan et al. (2017) found that the presence of social risk factors when evaluating injuries influenced child abuse consultants’ diagnosis of abuse among poor and minority children, especially in ambiguous cases. Similarly, Olson et al. (2018) found that child abuse clinicians’ consultation notes detail a rich social history that includes many domains of the child and families’ social ecology; however, information recorded was not always related to known population risk indicators (e.g., negative impression of caregivers). In both studies the authors suggested that uniform reporting styles and tools such as checklists and peer review show promise in minimizing bias, but continued research is warranted to understand how child abuse medical providers use information on patients’ social history and circumstances to understand and document their findings.

In the current study, CAN medical providers conducted multidisciplinary case conferences for peer review on each evaluation, which should help reduce bias by standardizing the process for all patients. Examining CAN medical providers’ notes through qualitative data mining may aid the development of a best practice model for managing and documenting child abuse and neglect consultations.

In addition to its strengths, this study has limitations. First, data were from only one clinical setting. Because the process whereby medical providers take family history may differ across practice settings (Johnson et al., 2021), the available information may differ by clinician. Second, the information gathered relied on intake interviews between providers and caregivers or children, and thus depended on the quality of communication and documentation in medical consultation notes. This may be subject to respondents’ willingness to share and their awareness of the child’s exposures. Thus, the absence of documented recording of social histories (e.g., history of parental childhood victimization, use of physical discipline, etc.) does not necessarily indicate the child’s family did not experience certain adversities. Third, the timing of an issue (historical and/or ongoing) and the exact nature of how affected a child was by various adversities was unclear. For example, a parent may have substance use issues and may vary in the amount of contact with the child. Similarly, a parent may have varying levels of criminal involvement—which vary in how it affects the child’s environment. Finally, a limitation is that the guidelines used by the CAN medical providers in this study have not been validated. The guidelines are used to guide the provision of care and resources, to facilitate discussion to mitigate bias and be consistent, and as internal continuous quality improvement, but validity testing has not yet been done.

Conclusions

This study begins to examine the reported health and social conditions of children who are referred to a child abuse and neglect clinic. By hand coding notes from these evaluations, we unveiled information that medical providers may use to inform their care of children. This information offers details that are otherwise unobservable from fields commonly used to assess meaning from EHR databases such as categorical information on encounter type or ICD diagnosis. Findings demonstrate that medical providers are gathering rich information on caregiver needs and behaviors (e.g., substance use, mental health, parenting style) and family factors (e.g., criminal involvement, housing insecurity) that are risks for maltreatment (Hunter & Flores, 2021), and which may be amenable to service provision. Interestingly, about 20 percent of the children referred to the clinic had been or were currently in foster or kinship care (not including those who were referred for their foster care evaluation). Thirty percent had a prior social service report that did not involve placement outside the home. The extent to which medical systems can work with families and community partners to address social drivers of health and risk factors for experiencing maltreatment is important, although we must take care not to conflate family needs and risk factors with child maltreatment (Keenan et al., 2017).

It is valuable and feasible to extract meaningful and substantial data from child abuse and neglect medical evaluation clinic notes, but it is time- and labor-intensive. Child abuse pediatricians and other medical providers in this area should consider upgrading their documentation to include flowsheets or data input areas that increase the ease of extracting data. Research should continue to examine how medical providers make use of this information, with a priority to reducing any biases. Framing these data within a developmental-contextual lens has potential to promote partnership between health systems, community partners, and families. In aggregate, this information might inform the underlying needs of families and better position communities and health care systems to address them.