Safeguarding children in dentistry: 1. Child protection training, experience and practice of dental professionals with an interest in paediatric dentistry

* Few dental professionals with child protection training have experience of making referrals. * There is a wide gap in practice between recognising signs of child abuse and neglect and responding effectively. * This may indicate missed opportunities to save children from continuing abuse. * There is a need for improved child protection information, support and training for dental professionals. Abstract Following several highly publicised inquiries into the deaths of children from abuse and neglect, there has been much recent interest in the role and responsibility of all health professionals to protect children at risk of maltreatment. The findings of a postal questionnaire, sent in March 2005 to 789 dentists and dental care professionals with an interest in paediatric dentistry working in varied settings in the UK, are presented in a two-part report and discussed in the context of current multi-agency good practice in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. This first part explores reported child protection training, experience and practice. There was a significant gap between recognising signs of abuse and responding effectively: 67% of respondents had suspected abuse or neglect of a child patient at some time in their career but only 29% had ever made a child protection referral. The dental profession is alerted to the need to ensure necessary appropriate action to safeguard children is always taken when child abuse or neglect are suspected

Gender differences in the use of cardiovascular interventions in HIV-positive persons; the D:A:D Study

Peer reviewe

The dental practitioner and child protection in Scotland

Objectives To identify from general dental practitioners: undergraduate and postgraduate training experience in child protection; numbers of suspected cases of child physical abuse; reasons for failing to report suspicious cases of child physical abuse; knowledge of local child protection protocols and procedures for referral. Materials and methods Postal questionnaires were sent to 500 randomly selected general dental practitioners in Scotland, with a further 200 sent to a random sample of the original 500 to increase response rate. Results Sixty-one per cent (306) of the original 500 questionnaires, and 35% (69) of the second random mail shot of 200 questionnaires were returned. Only 19% could remember any undergraduate training and 16% had been to a postgraduate lecture or seminar in child protection. Twenty-nine per cent of dentists had seen at least one suspicious case in their career. Only 8% of suspicious cases were referred on to the appropriate authorities. Reasons for failure to refer revealed that 11% were concerned about a negative impact on their practice, 34% feared family violence towards the child, 31% feared violence directed against them, and 48% feared litigation. Only 10% of dentists had been sent a copy of the local child protection guidelines on commencing work and only 15% had seen their Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) Guidelines via any route. Conclusions Due to lack of training or clear guidelines for dentists in Scotland, most practitioners were unsure what to do in the event of a suspicion of child abuse. Twenty-one per cent of dentists had encountered suspicious cases but failed to take any action. Dentists overwhelmingly requested appropriate training. This training should address dental competence in assessment of suspicious indicators and involve dentists in inter-agency child protection training

The Scottish dental practitioner's role in managing child abuse and neglect

Background: In 2005 Cairns et al. published a paper (Int J Paediatr Dent 2005; 15: 310?318) examining the role of the general dental practitioner (GDP) in child protection (CP) in Scotland. This involved a questionnaire sent out to Scottish GDPs in 2003. Subsequently in 2006 all UK dental practices were sent Child protection and the dental team, a manual detailing roles and responsibilities with regard to CP. During this time the profile of CP within dentistry increased. There has been no published research since 2006 investigating whether the gap between the proportion of GDPs who suspect child abuse/neglect in their patients and those who refer cases has changed. Aim: The aim of this research was to investigate whether this gap has changed between 2003 and 2010. Method: A postal questionnaire based on that used by Cairns et al. was sent to 50% of GDPs in Scotland in March 2010. Results: The response rate was 52% (53% male). Some 29% and 55% of respondents had received undergraduate or postgraduate training in child protection respectively. Over two thirds (37%) had suspected child abuse/neglect in one or more of their paediatric patients but only 11% had referred a case. The most common factor affecting the decision to refer was 'lack of certainty of the diagnosis' (74%). Some 77% thought that abused/neglected children had an increased caries increment and 73% of dentists were willing to get involved in detecting neglect. Conclusion: Dentists in Scotland appear to be suspecting and referring more cases of child abuse/neglect than previously. The vast majority are willing to get involved in detecting neglect

613 cases of splenic rupture without risk factors or previously diagnosed disease: a systematic review

Background Rupture of the spleen in the absence of trauma or previously diagnosed disease is largely ignored in the emergency literature and is often not documented as such in journals from other fields. We have conducted a systematic review of the literature to highlight the surprisingly frequent occurrence of this phenomenon and to document the diversity of diseases that can present in this fashion. Methods Systematic review of English and French language publications catalogued in Pubmed, Embase and CINAHL between 1950 and 2011. Results We found 613 cases of splenic rupture meeting the criteria above, 327 of which occurred as the presenting complaint of an underlying disease and 112 of which occurred following a medical procedure. Rupture appeared to occur spontaneously in histologically normal (but not necessarily normal size) spleens in 35 cases and after minor trauma in 23 cases. Medications were implicated in 47 cases, a splenic or adjacent anatomical abnormality in 31 cases and pregnancy or its complications in 38 cases. The most common associated diseases were infectious (n = 143), haematologic (n = 84) and non-haematologic neoplasms (n = 48). Amyloidosis (n = 24), internal trauma such as cough or vomiting (n = 17) and rheumatologic diseases (n = 10) are less frequently reported. Colonoscopy (n = 87) was the procedure reported most frequently as a cause of rupture. The anatomic abnormalities associated with rupture include splenic cysts (n = 6), infarction (n = 6) and hamartomata (n = 5). Medications associated with rupture include anticoagulants (n = 21), thrombolytics (n = 13) and recombinant G-CSF (n = 10). Other causes or associations reported very infrequently include other endoscopy, pulmonary, cardiac or abdominal surgery, hysterectomy, peliosis, empyema, remote pancreato-renal transplant, thrombosed splenic vein, hemangiomata, pancreatic pseudocysts, splenic artery aneurysm, cholesterol embolism, splenic granuloma, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, rib exostosis, pancreatitis, Gaucher's disease, Wilson's disease, pheochromocytoma, afibrinogenemia and ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Conclusions Emergency physicians should be attuned to the fact that rupture of the spleen can occur in the absence of major trauma or previously diagnosed splenic disease. The occurrence of such a rupture is likely to be the manifesting complaint of an underlying disease. Furthermore, colonoscopy should be more widely documented as a cause of splenic rupture