Child abuse, neglect, and exploitation of young people

Abstract

Standardising practice can improve identification and reduce bias Even for the most experienced healthcare providers, recognising and evaluating suspected child maltreatment or exploitation is challenging. The pressure to make the correct diagnosis is extremely high. Failing to recognise maltreatment can result in the child experiencing severe harm or even death. Conversely, incorrect diagnoses of accidental injuries as abusive or misinterpretations of poverty as neglect may burden care givers and lead to subsequent mistrust in healthcare providers.1 Unwarranted investigations and subsequent referral to child welfare (social) services affect marginalised populations disproportionately, including children of black, Hispanic, and Aboriginal ethnicity, and visible minorities.23 Two education articles in The BMJ offer healthcare providers guidance to better identify child abuse and neglect and recognise young people experiencing criminal and sexual exploitation.45 They summarise the growing evidence base that should inform consistent, effective practice. Schwartz et al discuss screening using clinical decision rules such as the TEN-4-FACESp, which identifies region, age, and patterns of bruising that are more likely to be caused by abuse than accidental injury.46 Such tools have advanced the ability of busy frontline clinicians to identify injuries suggestive of child maltreatment, but they rely on providers’ ability to remember which bruises, and at what ages, are “high risk.” Also, a positive screening result does not mean that a child is certainly …