BackgroundBilateral skull fractures in infancy often raise suspicion for abuse. Nevertheless, literature suggests that they may occur accidentally. However, empiric data are lacking.ObjectiveThis multicenter retrospective review aimed to characterize bilateral skull fractures in a large sample.Participants and SettingMedical records for infants younger than 24 months with bilateral skull fractures involving hospital consultation with a child abuse pediatrician (CAP) were reviewed from 2005 to 2020 at 13 nationally represented institutions.MethodsStandardized data collection across institutions included historical features, fracture characteristics, and additional injuries, as well as the CAP's determination of accident versus abuse. Pooled data were analyzed for descriptive and bivariate analyses.ResultsFor 235 cases, 141 were accidental, and 94 abuse. The majority occurred in young infants, and a history of a fall was common in 70% of cases. More than 80% involved both parietal bones. Bilateral simple linear fractures were more common in accidental cases, 79% versus 35%, whereas a complex fracture was more frequent in abuse cases, 55% versus 21% (P < 0.001). Almost two thirds of accidental cases showed approximation of the fractures at the sagittal suture, compared with one third of abuse cases (P < 0.001). Whereas focal intracranial hemorrhage was seen in 43% of all cases, diffuse intracranial hemorrhage was seen more in abuse cases (45%) than accidents (11%). Skin trauma was more common in abusive than accidental injury (67% vs 17%, P < 0.001), as were additional fractures on skeletal survey (49% vs 3%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsA fall history was common in bilateral skull fractures deemed accidental by a CAP. Most accidental cases involved young infants with biparietal simple linear fractures, without skin trauma or additional fractures. A skeletal survey may aid in the determination of accidental or abusive injury for unwitnessed events resulting in bilateral skull fractures in infants.
BACKGROUND Children, caregivers, and clinicians often prefer midstream clean catch technique to urethral catheterization for obtaining urine cultures. However, contamination is common, potentially resulting in unnecessary medical intervention and cost. With this resident-led initiative, we aimed to reduce pediatric midstream clean catch urine culture contamination over 6 months. METHODS A bundled intervention was implemented in the emergency department, inpatient units, and outpatient clinics at our institution. Baseline contamination rates were collected April 2016 to September 2017; the intervention was introduced October 2017 to March 2018 and evaluated April 2018 to September 2018. Sustainability was measured October 2018 to September 2020. Balancing measures included rates of repeat urine cultures, positive cultures, and contaminated cultures by urethral catheterization. RESULTS Rates of midstream clean catch urine culture contamination were 45.3% preintervention and 30.9% postintervention, a 14.7% (95% confidence interval: 8.0% to 21.5%) absolute decrease. Before and after intervention, girls and patients 16 to 17 years old had the highest rates of midstream clean catch contamination. Six months postintervention, the rate of repeat urine culture decreased from 4.9% to 0.9% with no change in positive culture results or contaminated cultures by urethral catheterization. Over the subsequent 2 years, the impact of the intervention decreased (rate of contamination over 30 months postintervention: 38.4%, a 7.3% [95% confidence interval: 2.9% to 11.6%] absolute decrease; rate of repeat urine culture: 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS An intervention to improve midstream clean catch urine culture collection was associated with a clinically meaningful decrease in contamination. Impact of the resident-led intervention decreased over time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.