Infant death from accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed in England and Wales:rare or unrecognised events?

Background: Mandatory joint police and healthcare investigations of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) have been in place since 2008 in England. These include death scene examination with cause of death determined at multiprofessional case conference. Detailed evidence on sleep arrangements is available for most cases potentially leading to more being identified as due to accidental suffocation. SUDI remaining unexplained following investigation are classified as SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) or unspecified deaths. Our objective was to determine whether detailed SUDI investigation has led to an increase in deaths classified as accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed (ASSB)? Methods: We obtained official mortality data for England and Wales for infants dying aged 0–364 days for International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision codes R95 (SIDS), R96, R98, R99 (unspecified causes of mortality) and W75 (ASSB) for the years 2000–2019. We calculated the mortality rate for ASSB, SIDS and unspecified causes based on total live births each year. Results: Unexplained SUDI decreased from 353 in 2000 to 175 in 2019, with the mortality rate falling from 0.58 to 0.29 per 1000 live births. The total postneonatal mortality rate fell during this time from 1.9 to 0.9 per 1000 live births suggesting this is a genuine fall. SIDS accounted for 70% of unexplained SUDI in 2000 falling to 49% in 2020 with a corresponding increase in R99 unspecified deaths. Few deaths were recorded as ASSB (W75), ranging between 4 in 2010 and 24 in 2001. The rate for ASSB ranged from 0.6 to 4.0 per 100000 live births. Conclusions: There is a shift away from SIDS (R95) towards unspecified causes of death (R96, R98, R99). Improved investigation of deaths has not led to increased numbers of death identified as due to ASSB. There needs to be clear guidelines on accurate classification of deaths from ASSB to facilitate learning from deaths and inform prevention efforts

Improving professional practice in the investigation and management of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: Qualitative analysis of serious child protection reviews

Background: Local multi-agency case reviews are regularly held in England when children have suffered significant harm from abuse or neglect, including from child sexual abuse (CSA). Most CSA takes place within families, is common but under-reported and can cause long-term harm. Objective: The aim was to analyse English child protection reviews relating to intrafamilial CSA to identify improvements for professional practice. Participants and setting: Local Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews (LCSPRs) and Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) relating to serious incidents of intrafamilial CSA occurring between 01 April 2017 and 31 March 2020. Methods: LCSPRs and SCRs were obtained from the National Case Review Repository and thematically analysed. Results: There were 243 reviews, of which 25 featured intrafamilial CSA. The main themes related to perpetrators, vulnerable families, and professional practice. Half of perpetrators were known by services to have previously abused children, but issues with professional practice enabled them to continue. Most children did not disclose CSA verbally showing challenging or sexualised behaviour; but professionals lacked knowledge and confidence on how to intervene without verbal disclosure, which limited safeguarding actions. Non-engagement by families with services was common, with some non-abusing parents complicit in abuse and deception. Significant neglect occurred in half the families, which diverted professional attention away from CSA. Conclusion: CSA is deliberate abuse of children involving considerable deception by perpetrators in contrast to some other types of child abuse. This difference in abuser behaviour makes child protection more difficult, particularly when professionals do not recognise and respond to children's non-verbal disclosures