Abusive head trauma (AHT) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population, especially in young infants. In the past decade, advancements in research have refined medical understanding of the epidemiological, clinical, biomechanical, and pathologic factors comprising the diagnosis, thereby enhancing clinical detection of a challenging diagnostic entity. Failure to recognize AHT and respond appropriately at any step in the process, from medical diagnosis to child protection and legal decision-making, can place children at risk. The American Academy of Pediatrics revises the 2009 policy statement on AHT to incorporate the growing body of knowledge on the topic. Although this statement incorporates some of that growing body of knowledge, it is not a comprehensive exposition of the science. This statement aims to provide pediatric practitioners with general guidance on a complex subject. The Academy recommends that pediatric practitioners remain vigilant for the signs and symptoms of AHT, conduct thorough medical evaluations, consult with pediatric medical subspecialists when necessary, and embrace the challenges and need for strong advocacy on the subject. HISTORY The evolution of the abusive head trauma (AHT) diagnosis has a long and storied history. 1-3 Earlier nomenclature included whiplash shaken infant syndrome, shaken impact syndrome, inflicted childhood neurotrauma, and shaken baby syndrome. The current term, AHT, was adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2009 in recognition of the fact that inflicted head injury of children can involve a variety of biomechanical forces, including shaking. That change in terminology (from shaken baby syndrome), however, was misinterpreted by some in the legal and medical communities as an indication of some doubt in or invalidation of the diagnosis and the mechanism of shaking as a cause of injury. The AAP continues to affirm the dangers and harms of shaking infants, continues to embrace the "shaken baby syndrome" diagnosis as a valid subset of the AHT diagnosis, and encourages pediatric practitioners to educate

Significant race/ethnicity-based disparities in AHT evaluation and reporting were observed at only 2 of 18 sites and occurred almost exclusively in lower risk patients. In the absence of local confounders, these disparities likely represent the impact of local physicians' implicit bias.

Pediatricians regularly care for children who have experienced child maltreatment. Child maltreatment is a risk factor for a broad range of mental health problems. Issues specific to child maltreatment make addressing emotional and behavioral challenges among maltreated children difficult. This clinical report focuses on 2 key issues necessary for the care of maltreated children and adolescents in pediatric settings: trauma-informed assessments and the role of pharmacotherapy in maltreated children and adolescents. Specific to assessment, current or past involvement of the child in the child welfare system can hinder obtaining necessary information or access to appropriate treatments. Furthermore, trauma-informed assessments can help identify the need for specific interventions. Finally, it is important to take both child welfare system and trauma-informed assessment approaches into account when considering the use of psychotropic agents because there are critical diagnostic and systemic issues that affect the prescribing and discontinuing of psychiatric medications among children with a history of child maltreatment.

Children with trisomy 13 and 18 (previously deemed “incompatible with life”) are living longer, warranting a comprehensive overview of their unique comorbidities and complex care needs. This Review Article provides a summation of the recent literature, informed by the study team's Interdisciplinary Trisomy Translational Program consisting of representatives from: cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, neonatology, otolaryngology, intensive care, neurology, social work, chaplaincy, nursing, and palliative care. Medical interventions are discussed in the context of decisional‐paradigms and whole‐family considerations. The communication format, educational endeavors, and lessons learned from the study team's interdisciplinary care processes are shared with recognition of the potential for replication and implementation in other care settings.