Stages of development and injury patterns in the early years: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND: In Canada, there are many formal public health programs under development that aim to prevent injuries in the early years (e.g. 0–6). There are paradoxically no population-based studies that have examined patterns of injury by developmental stage among these young children. This represents a gap in the Canadian biomedical literature. The current population-based analysis explores external causes and consequences of injuries experienced by young children who present to the emergency department for assessment and treatment. This provides objective evidence about prevention priorities to be considered in anticipatory counseling and public health planning. METHODS: Four complete years of data (1999–2002; n = 5876 cases) were reviewed from the Kingston sites of the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP), an ongoing injury surveillance initiative. Epidemiological analyses were used to characterize injury patterns within and across age groups (0–6 years) that corresponded to normative developmental stages. RESULTS: The average annual rate of emergency department-attended childhood injury was 107 per 1000 (95% CI 91–123), with boys experiencing higher annual rates of injury than girls (122 vs. 91 per 1000; p < 0.05). External causes of injury changed substantially by developmental stage. This lead to the identification of four prevention priorities surrounding 1) the optimization of supervision; 2) limiting access to hazards; 3) protection from heights; and 4) anticipation of risks. CONCLUSION: This population-based injury surveillance analysis provides a strong evidence-base to inform and enhance anticipatory counseling and other public health efforts aimed at the prevention of childhood injury during the early years

Clin Toxicol (Phila)

Introduction: Button battery ingestion in children can be fatal if oesophageal perforation occurs. Such children require chest radiography in the emergency department to determine the button battery position and number. Current guidelines recommend that a button battery impacted in the oesophagus should be removed within two hours. We developed a clinical tool (the button battery impaction score) to estimate the risk of oesophageal impaction and help determine the most appropriate healthcare facility for initial assessment, either a local medical centre or a medical centre with the infrastructure for endoscopic retrieval. Methods: A multicentre retrospective study was conducted over seven years in eight French poison centres. We included patients aged less than 12 years with radiography showing the button battery position and a symptom description before radiography. Button battery impaction scores were calculated using backward stepwise selection. Results and discussion: A total of 1,430 patients were included, of whom 86, 461, and 375 had a button battery in their oesophagus, stomach, and post-pyloric position, respectively. No button batteries were identified by radiography in 508 patients. Sixteen of thirty-five factors independently predicted oesophageal impaction before chest radiography (P = 15 mm. The button battery impaction score showed an area under the curve value of 0.87, a negative predictive value of 0.98, and a sensitivity of 0.86. No cases of death, stricture, or haemorrhage were observed in patients with negative scores, including those with oesophageal impaction. Conclusions: A button battery impaction score used readily available data to predict the risk of oesophageal impaction after button battery ingestion and before chest radiography. When further validated, this rapid tool may be widely applicable in determining an appropriate facility for patient transfer to either a local medical centre or a medical centre with the infrastructure for endoscopic retrieval