Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:41:39.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Risky presentations

An audit of accident and emergency presentation of older children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Fiona Subotsky
Affiliation:
Belgrave Department of Child and Family Psychiatry, King's College Hospital, South London Maudsley NHS Trust, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS
Alistair Santhouse
Affiliation:
Belgrave Department of Child and Family Psychiatry, King's College Hospital, South London Maudsley NHS Trust, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and Methods

The aim was to review the assessment and management of the psychosocial risk (including substance misuse) of older children presenting to the accident and emergency department, with a view to making recommendations to improve services. The method used was to inspect casualty records of attendances over two weeks of 11-16-year-olds.

Results

In no cases was any note made of whether substance misuse might have occurred. Cases of apparent psychosocial risk were, however, dealt with appropriately in the main.

Clinical Implications

Brief advisory guidelines were written for accident and emergency staff to promote consideration of the misuse of substances in older children, and an information leaflet was developed for young people and their parents.

Type
Original papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2000

The presentation of deliberate self-harm (especially overdoses) to accident and emergency departments and subsequent management by child and adolescent mental health services is comparatively well documented (Reference BrentBrent, 1997; Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1998). However, it is now recognised that other ‘accident presentations’ are commonly associated with a range of psychosocial difficulties and “health-risky behaviour” (Reference MilgramMilgram, 1993; Reference RivaraRivara, 1995). For instance, in the US substance misuse (alcohol or drugs) has been reported as commonly associated in teenagers with presentations in accident and emergency departments or trauma admissions (e.g. Reference Loiselle, Baker and TempletonLoiselle, 1993; Reference Mannenbach, Hargarten and PhelanMannenbach, 1997; Reference Spain, Boaz and DavidsonSpain, 1997). Recommendations have been made to use screening more and subsequently refer those positive to appropriate services (Reference Maio, Portnoy and BlowMaio, 1994; Reference Buchfurer and RadeckiBuchfurer & Radecki, 1996).

In the UK drug and alcohol use and misuse has increased among young teenagers (Health Advisory Service, 1996; Reference Miller and PlantMiller & Plant, 1996; Reference ColemanColeman, 1997). A British inner city casualty audit (Reference ConnorConnor, 1997) revealed that about 200 under-17s were brought in under the influence of alcohol in one year. Anecdotally, the inner city casualty department of the hospital in which the child psychiatry department is located reported an increase of children attending in intoxicated states. However, very few had ever been referred to child psychiatry.

The study

Casualty notes were collected on all 11- to 16-year-olds who had presented to the accident and emergency department during the course of two non-consecutive weeks. The entry made by the casualty officers was analysed and attenders were classified into three groups of risk:

  1. (a) A low-risk group, in which the history was internally consistent and compatible with the injury sustained, for example, a child brought in by a teacher with a cut finger, after attempting to ‘slam-dunk’ a basketball into the hoop.

  2. (b) A high-risk group, where either there was evidence of risk-taking behaviour, such as an overdose, or the history did not explain the injury.

  3. (c) An uncertain-risk group, where there was insufficient history to judge risk (this included four youngsters who did not wait to be seen).

A note was made of whether the possibility of drug or alcohol misuse had been enquired about.

The high- and low-risk groups were then compared against the following parameters, which were recorded on the casualty card:

  1. (a) who they were accompanied by (family member/nobody or person other than family);

  2. (b) gender;

  3. (c) age;

  4. (d) time of presentation (night/day);

  5. (e) diagnosis (medical/trauma);

  6. (f) outcome of attendance (discharged/admitted/‘other’).

Statistics

The χ2 test was used to test associations of the binomial variables: risk, gender, who accompanied the patient, diagnosis, and outcome. The association of risk with night versus day was calculated using Fisher's exact test. The association of risk with age was calculated using the Mann—Whitney U-test and further logistic regression analysis.

Findings

A total of 130 presentations of 11- to 16-year-olds to the accident and emergency department was recorded over the two weeks under study. In none of the 130 cases was a record made of an enquiry into the possibility of drug or alcohol use, regardless of the circumstances of the presentation. Of the 130, 71 (55%) were considered to be low-risk, 22 (17%) high-risk and 37 (28%) uncertain-risk (the last group was excluded from the statistical analysis).

Four parameters were not significantly associated with risk: age, gender, diagnosis and time of presentation. For outcome a high-risk individual was significantly less likely to be discharged, admitted for non-psychosocial reasons or followed up in the fracture clinic (P=0.006) (see Table 1). Of the 10 ‘other’ recorded for the high-risk group, four were sent back to the GP (one unwanted pregnancy, one self-harm, one medically unexplained shortness of breath and one child with recurrent fainting episodes). There were five referrals to child psychiatry, some of whom were admitted, all having harmed themselves in some way. One child was referred to casualty review, having punched through a window. It is of interest that four attenders said that they were pregnant or possibly pregnant.

Table 1. Risk by outcome

Risk level Discharged Fracture clinic Non-psychosocial admission Other Total
High risk 8 (36.3%) 1 (4.5%) 3 (13.6%) 10 (45.5%) 22
Low risk 43 (61.4%) 5 (7.1%) 14 (20.0%) 8 (11.4%) 70

Of the ‘other’ category in the low-risk group, five were referred back to the general practitioner (suture removal, chicken pox, conjunctivitis, asthma and laceration), two were referred to out-patients and one for casualty review, all with musculoskeletal injuries.

Of the ‘unascertained’ group four removed themselves before a full history or examination was taken. However, the presenting complaints were: one assault, one facial injury from a fight, one ‘inadvertently stabbed self’ and one rash — so that while the cases were not completely examined, risk looks high. Of these two were unaccompanied, two were with their mother.

When risk was compared with ‘accompanied by’, there was a significant result showing that risk was associated with not being accompanied by a family member on presentation to casualty (P=0.006), for example, a 15-year-old girl unaccompanied to casualty with a complaint of ‘Tippex in the eye’ raising the suspicion of solvent misuse (see Table 2).

Table 2. Risk by “accompanied by”

Risk level Family member Non-family member/nobody Total
High-risk 12 (54.5%) 10 (45.5%) 22
Low-risk 59 (83.1%) 12 (16.9%) 71
Total 71 (76.3%) 22 (23.7%) 93

Comment

It is important to identify psychosocial risk contributors to the presentation of youngsters in accident and emergency departments and to recognise where drugs or alcohol are part of this. At least 17% of the 130 presentations to casualty of 11- to 16-year-olds were high risk in terms of evidence of behaviour or inconsistency of the injury with the history. We found that another indicator of difference between the groups was whether or not the child was accompanied by a member of the family, so that this is important to record. That the difference between the groups was recognised in some way by staff was reflected in the differences of outcome between high-risk and low-risk groups, with a higher proportion of the former being referred on to child psychiatry usually for deliberate self-harm or to the general practitioner. Only one case of self-harm out of six was not referred to child psychiatry. While there was no evidence in the casualty note system of referral on to social services there is a back-up notes review system provided by a liaison health visitor.

The specific problems of drugs and alcohol are still being overlooked despite evidence suggesting that there is increasing use of drugs and alcohol in the young, and that there is a strong likelihood of associated presentations in casualty. There may be a number of reasons for this. First of all, there may be pressures of time and that substance misuse is not even thought about. Second, if it is thought about and asked, what should the casualty doctor do with this information? If every child who experiments with drugs is referred, the child psychiatry services would be quickly swamped. Similarly, this creates a problem for the child psychiatry services, who do not necessarily have the expertise and experience in dealing with children with genuine addictions, or access to specialist services in the way adult psychiatrists do. Yet a casualty ‘crisis’ could be a good opportunity to pick up and intervene with those with substance misuse problems.

As the next stage of the audit we fed back the findings to a variety of groups — accident and emergency, the child psychiatry department, paediatricians. We developed brief advisory guidelines for casualty staff on how to assess and appropriately refer children who may have misused drugs or alcohol, and we have also produced a leaflet for young people and parents advising them about sources of help if there are concerns about the use of drugs or alcohol. Meanwhile, discussions with the addictions directorate and the local purchaser are ongoing and we hope to be able to provide better services for the target group of young people who misuse drugs and alcohol and have associated psycho-social problems.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the goodwill and cooperation from the staff in accident and emergency at King's College Hospital, London, especially Dr Ruth Brown, consultant. We would also like to thank Dr Clive Holmes for statistical advice.

References

Brent, D. A. (1997) Practitioner review: the aftercare of adolescents with deliberate self-harm. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 277286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchfurer, L. A. & Radecki, S. E. (1996) Alcohol and drug abuse in an urban trauma center: predictors of screening and detection. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 15, 6574.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1997) Key Data on Adolescence. Brighton: Trust for the Study of Adolescence.Google Scholar
Connor, J. (1997) Children and the ingestion of alcohol: a statistical analysis of children attending an A and E department. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 5, 185188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Health Advisory Service (1996) Children and Young People: Substance Misuse Services – the Substance of Young Need. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Loiselle, J. M., Baker, M. D., Templeton, J. M., et al (1993) Substance abuse in adolescent trauma. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 22, 15301534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maio, R. F., Portnoy, J., Blow, F. C., et al (1994) Injury type, injury severity, and repeat occurrence of alcohol-related trauma in adolescents. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 18, 261264.Google Scholar
Mannenbach, M. S., Hargarten, S. W., & Phelan, M. B. (1997) Alcohol use among injured patients aged 12 to 18 years. Academic Emergency Medicine, 4, 4044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milgram, G. G. (1993) Adolescents, alcohol and aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 11 (suppl.), 5361.Google ScholarPubMed
Miller, P. & Plant, M. (1996) Drinking, smoking and illicit drug use among fifteen and sixteen year olds in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal, 313, 394397.Google Scholar
Rivara, F. P. (1995) Crime, violence and injuries in children and adolescents: Common risk factors? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 5, 367385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Psychiatrists (1998) Managing Deliberate Self-Harm in Young People. Council Report CR 64. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.Google Scholar
Spain, D. A., Boaz, P. W., Davidson, D. J., et al (1997) Risk-taking behaviors among adolescent trauma patients. Journal of Trauma, 43, 423426.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Risk by outcome

Figure 1

Table 2. Risk by “accompanied by”

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.