Objective Children frequently present with head injuries to acute care settings. Although international paediatric clinical practice guidelines for head injuries exist, they do not address all considerations related to triage, imaging, observation versus admission, transfer, discharge and follow‐up of mild to moderate head injuries relevant to the Australian and New Zealand context. The Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative (PREDICT) set out to develop an evidence‐based, locally applicable, practical clinical guideline for the care of children with mild to moderate head injuries presenting to acute care settings. Methods A multidisciplinary Guideline Working Group (GWG) developed 33 questions in three key areas – triage, imaging and discharge of children with mild to moderate head injuries presenting to acute care settings. We identified existing high‐quality guidelines and from these guidelines recommendations were mapped to clinical questions. Updated literature searches were undertaken, and key new evidence identified. Recommendations were created through either adoption, adaptation or development of de novo recommendations. The guideline was revised after a period of public consultation. Results The GWG developed 71 recommendations (evidence‐informed = 35, consensus‐based = 17, practice points = 19), relevant to the Australian and New Zealand setting. The guideline is presented as three documents: (i) a detailed Full Guideline summarising the evidence underlying each recommendation; (ii) a Guideline Summary; and (iii) a clinical Algorithm: Imaging and Observation Decision‐making for Children with Head Injuries. Conclusions The PREDICT Australian and New Zealand Guideline for Mild to Moderate Head Injuries in Children provides high‐level evidence and practical guidance for front line clinicians.

Our findings suggest that the paternalistic model within medical care can be an expectation of some older patients and if taking a paternalistic approach we should not underestimate the trust and power that is imparted to us.

IntroductionAs part of a programme of research aiming to improve the outcomes of traumatically injured children, a multisource healthcare advocacy tool has been developed to allow trauma team members and hospital governance administrators to reflect and to act on complex trauma team-hospital systems interactions. We have termed this tool a Field Assessment Conditioning Tool (FACT). The FACT draws on quantitative data including clinical care points in addition to self-reflective qualitative data. The FACT is designed to provide feedback on this assessment data both horizontally across fellow potential team members and vertically to the hospital/organisation governance structure, enabling process gap identification and allowing an agenda of improvements to be realised. The aim of the study described in this paper is to explore the perceived fitness for purpose of the FACT to provide an opportunity for healthcare advocacy by healthcare professionals caring for traumatically injured children.Methods and analysisThe FACT will be implemented and studied in three district hospitals, each around a major trauma centre in the UK, USA and New Zealand. Using a qualitative approach with standardised semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis we will explore the following question: Is the FACT fit for purpose in terms of providing a framework to evaluate, reflect and act on the individual hospital's own performance (trauma team—hospital interactions) in terms of readiness to receive traumatically injured children?Ethics and disseminationEthics opinion was sought for each research host organisation participating and deemed not required. The results will be disseminated to participating sites, networks and published in high-impact journals.

There is variability in providers' perspectives on the interventions required before transporting severely head-injured patients for imaging. Diverse team and system factors contribute to delays in imaging.

Objectives: To investigate patientlevel factors predictive for computed tomography of the brain (CTB) use and abnormality in head injured children in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: Retrospective data from tertiary, urban/suburban and regional/ rural EDs including factors predictive for CTB use and abnormality. Results: Of 3072 children at 31 EDs, 212 (6.9%) had a CTB scan, of which 66 (31%) were abnormal. Increasing age, serious mechanisms of injury and decreasing Glasgow Coma Score were predictive for ordering CTB. Decreasing age was predictive for CTB abnormalities. Other factors were not. Conclusion: Patient-level drivers of CTB use in children in Australia and New Zealand are consistent with international data.