Qualitative analysis of clinician experience in utilising the BuRN Tool (Burns Risk assessment for Neglect or abuse Tool) in clinical practice
Introduction
Approximately 50–60,000 children attend emergency departments each year as a result of burns [1]. Evidence suggests that the proportion to child maltreatment ranges from 1 to 24% (1% Cornwall, UK; 24% USA) [2], [3]. One of the most current UK figures quoted estimate that 10% are a result of maltreatment with the ratio of physical abuse to neglect 9:1 [4].
The identification of burns due to maltreatment is complex but is an essential step in safeguarding children. For those discharged without recognition of the signs of maltreatment, there is an increased risk of future neglect or abuse [5], [6].
Members of the Children’s Burns Research Network have developed a clinical prediction tool (CPT). The BuRN-Tool (Burns Risk assessment for Neglect or abuse Tool) generates a simple score based around seven routinely collected demographic, historical and clinical features (Supplementary Appendix 1). Possible scores range from 0 to 12. A score of three or more acts as the threshold above which maltreatment is suspected [7]. The variables in the tool were identified following a systematic review and an epidemiological study [8], [9]. Data collection for these studies utilised a proforma called the BaSAT (Burns and Scalds Assessment Template – Supplementary Appendix 2). As well as its role as a research template, the BaSAT acts as a clinical record, aiding the identification of key features of maltreatment and works in synergy with the BuRN-Tool which has been prospectively validated [7]. The next stage in the development of a CPT is to undertake an implementation study to ensure that the CPT has the desired effect in the clinical setting [10].
As an initial stage in the process evaluation, we have undertaken a qualitative study to explore clinician opinion on the acceptability of the BuRN-Tool during the implementation study. In a previous study, the acceptability of the CPT was assessed, noting that clinicians were willing to use the BuRN-Tool [11]. This analysis occurred before the tool was in clinical use with the BuRN-Tool undergoing considerable revisions since.
In the study site, the BuRN-Tool is incorporated into the BaSAT in the ED. The ED was chosen as the BuRN-Tool was derived from an ED population and is designed to be used in this environment.
Section snippets
Design
Focus group methodology is a recognized means of collecting qualitative data. The method allows for extrapolation of the data collected, and further interpretation and refinement of results [12], [13]. It can be a particularly useful to explore knowledge and experiences [14].
A key advantage of focus groups is the ability to involve multiple participants in one session, allowing for data to be gathered from numerous candidates without the need for several interviews [13]. It facilitates
Results
The following results are presented by sub-theme. Quotes presented represent illustrative examples of the identified themes. Insertions to clarify topic content are denoted by square brackets. The characteristics of each participant are presented in brackets after each quote.
Discussion
The focus groups demonstrated a homogenous and positive attitude regarding the layout, benefits and use of the BuRN-Tool. The perceived benefits crossed all levels of staff experience, training and specialities. Participants commented that those from a non-paediatric background and junior level benefited the most, while also acknowledging a role for the BuRN-Tool for experienced consultants. The ease of use and interpretation allows a consistent approach in the clinical use of the BuRN-Tool.
Limitations
The study limitations include the fact that the lead researchers conducted the focus groups, potentially introducing bias. The middle grade focus group was comprised of four participants, the lower end of the recommended number for a focus group and may have impacted the discussion.
The site was chosen due to its current involvement in the implementation study and the results obtained may not be generalizable to other ED’s. Further focus groups will be conducted in other emergency departments as
Conclusion
This study offers an insight into clinician opinion on using CPT in an ED setting. All levels of clinician seniority supported its use. Assessing child maltreatment cases can be challenging, often involving the piecing together of small fragments of information to draw overall conclusions. The results support the hypothesis that adding a numerical score to a clinical assessment can make a subjective interpretation more objective.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References (26)
- et al.
Non-accidental burns in children—are we neglecting neglect?
Burns
(2006) - et al.
Reabuse rates in a sample of children followed for 5 years after discharge from a child abuse inpatient assessment program
Child Abuse Negl
(1995) - et al.
A systematic review of the features that indicate intentional scalds in children
Burns
(2008) Maltreatment and disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study
Child Abuse Negl
(2000)- et al.
Burns is not in the core curricula of medical schools in the United Kingdom
Burns
(2009) - et al.
Burns in children
BJA Educ
(2007) When are burns not accidental?
Arch Dis Child
(1986)- et al.
Burns in children younger than two years of age: an experience with 200 consecutive admissions
Pediatrics
(1997) - et al.
Return to jeopardy: the fate of pediatric burn patients who are victims of abuse and neglect
J Burn Care Rehabil
(1998) - et al.
Raising suspicion of mistreatment from burns: derivation and validation of the BuRN-Tool
Burns
(2017)
Patterns of burns and scalds in children
Arch Dis Child
Implementation of clinical decision rules in the emergency department
Acad Emerg Med
Exploring the acceptability of a clinical decision rule to identify paediatric burns due to child abuse or neglect
Emerg Med J
Cited by (7)
Screening Tools for Child Abuse Used by Healthcare Providers: A Systematic Review
2022, Journal of Nursing ResearchArabian undergraduates perceptions regarding barriers among the geriatric patients for failing to keep dental appointments: A cross-sectional study
2021, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical PharmacologyBurns and Scalds Assessment Template: Standardising clinical assessment of childhood burns in the emergency department
2020, Emergency Medicine Journal