Objective: To determine the validity of face to face, self reported responses to questions about the presence of safety devices and use of safety practices in the home aimed at preventing unintended injuries to preschool aged children.Methods: The authors invited families with children enrolling in a medium sized Midwestern US community Head Start program to participate in a randomized study of home safety practices. Participation involved consenting parents (n = 452) completing an initial questionnaire during Head Start enrollment or in their home. Project staff conducted home inspections to confirm parental responses to 16 questions. Only inspections conducted within 34 days of questionnaire completion (n = 259) were included in the validation study. Parents were told that the home visit would assess the need for safety devices, but were not informed of the validation aspect of the study.Results: Sensitivities were generally high for all 16 safety practices, whereas negative predictive value and specificity varied considerably. Positive predictive value was also high for most practices, and did not vary by ethnicity. Answers provided by parents in their home were different and more reliable than those provided by parents interviewed at school (p = 0.001).Conclusions: Use of safety devices and practices by parents of preschool aged children reported in a face to face interview are generally reliable. Reliability increases if the interview is conducted in the home. Parents may also be more willing to report potential problems if they perceive they may receive corrective assistance.

Injury and Poison Prevention| March 01 2006 Misdosing of Medications Prompts Most Poison Calls About Young Infants AAP Grand Rounds (2006) 15 (3): 31. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.15-3-31 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Misdosing of Medications Prompts Most Poison Calls About Young Infants. AAP Grand Rounds March 2006; 15 (3): 31. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.15-3-31 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: poisons Source: Coco TJ, King WD, Slattery AP. Descriptive epidemiology of infant ingestion calls to a regional poison control center. South Med J. 2005;98:779–783. Children aged ≤6 months are poisoned primarily as a result of a caregiver providing the wrong dose of medication. Dosing based upon weight and body surface area and the need to measure small doses further increase risk. Researchers from the University of Alabama, Birmingham, retrospectively reviewed all calls to the Birmingham Regional Poison Control Center during a 1-year period (December 28, 2002–December 28, 2003). During that period, 358 calls concerned infants aged ≤6 months (mean age 4 months). Fifty-nine percent of ingestions involved medications, most commonly ranitidine (11%), metoclopramide (9%), acetaminophen (8%), and Dimetapp Infant Drops (6%). Fifty-three percent of the calls involved “therapeutic misadventures,” which were defined as any incorrect action occurring in the administration of a medication, including errors... You do not currently have access to this content.

BACKGROUND:Training in child advocacy is now required in pediatric residency program curricula. No national consensus exists regarding the content of such advocacy training.OBJECTIVE:To identify an operational definition of advocacy, as well as knowledge, skills, and attitude objectives for advocacy training in pediatric residency programs.METHODS:Professionals experienced in pediatric advocacy and training (n = 53) were invited to participate in a sequence of surveys to define the content of a pediatric residency advocacy curriculum that would result in acquisition of appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to advocacy for children. Three rounds of surveys were distributed, collected, and analyzed using a modified Delphi technique, in which the results from an antecedent survey were used to refine responses in a subsequent survey.RESULTS:Participants (n = 36), comprising a group of experienced leaders with diverse training and experience in child advocacy and resident education, created a consensus definition for advocacy. They initially identified 179 possible objectives for advocacy curricula. Through the iterative process of the Delphi technique, 32 of those objectives were identified as necessary for inclusion in a child advocacy curriculum for pediatric residents.CONCLUSIONS:Using a modified Delphi technique, a group of experienced leaders in pediatric advocacy were able to reach consensus on an operational definition of child advocacy and a set of objectives for a resident advocacy curriculum. Programs may use these findings to assist in developing an advocacy curriculum based on their own faculty assets and community resources.

Injury and Poison Prevention| September 01 2005 Concealed Weapon Laws May Not Reduce Violent Death Rates AAP Grand Rounds (2005) 14 (3): 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.14-3-33 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Concealed Weapon Laws May Not Reduce Violent Death Rates. AAP Grand Rounds September 2005; 14 (3): 33–34. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.14-3-33 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: firearms, statutes and laws, weapons, homicide, suicide You do not currently have access to this content.

Injury and Poison Prevention| September 01 2004 Child Deaths Due to Downhill Skiing AAP Grand Rounds (2004) 12 (3): 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.12-3-32 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Child Deaths Due to Downhill Skiing. AAP Grand Rounds September 2004; 12 (3): 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.12-3-32 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: protective helmet, skiing, craniocerebral trauma You do not currently have access to this content.

Injury and Poison Prevention| February 01 2003 Do Skateparks Reduce the Risk of Skateboard and In-line Skating Injuries? AAP Grand Rounds (2003) 9 (2): 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.9-2-19 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Do Skateparks Reduce the Risk of Skateboard and In-line Skating Injuries?. AAP Grand Rounds February 2003; 9 (2): 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.9-2-19 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All AAP SitesAll PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP News Search Advanced Search Topics: inline skating, risk reduction Source: Everett WW. Skatepark injuries and the influence of skatepark design: a one year consecutive case series. J Emerg Med. 2002;23:269–274. This prospective consecutive case series from investigators at the University of California-Irvine Medical Center collected data on all patients presenting to a university-based Level 1 emergency department (ED) for injuries suffered at a local commercial skatepark in Southern California between July 1999 through June 2000. All trauma transports from the skatepark were taken to the study ED, although paramedic calls and walk-in patients may have elected to use other EDs. Data collection included demographic information, type of activity, experience, equipment, location of injury within the park, and discharge diagnoses. Annual volume of the skatepark was estimated at 89,800 in a prior pilot study. During the study period, 100 subjects were enrolled with 106 injuries,... Copyright © 2003 by the American Academy of Pediatrics2003 You do not currently have access to this content.

Injury and Poison Prevention| May 01 2002 Smoke Alarm Giveaway Program Is Cost Effective in Preventing Fire-Related Injuries and Death AAP Grand Rounds (2002) 7 (5): 50–51. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.7-5-50 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Smoke Alarm Giveaway Program Is Cost Effective in Preventing Fire-Related Injuries and Death. AAP Grand Rounds May 2002; 7 (5): 50–51. https://doi.org/10.1542/gr.7-5-50 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All PublicationsAll JournalsAAP Grand RoundsPediatricsHospital PediatricsPediatrics In ReviewNeoReviewsAAP NewsAll AAP Sites Search Advanced Search Topics: fire - disasters, fire - physical phenomenon, smoke, cost effectiveness Source: Haddix AC, Mallonee S, Waxweiler R, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of a smoke alarm giveaway program in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Injury Prevention. 2001;7:276–281. From 1990 to 1995 the authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a smoke alarm giveaway program. The program distributed 10,100 battery-operated smoke alarms door-to-door to 9,292 homes in a targeted residential area of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This location had a residential fire injury rate 2.6 times higher than the rest of Oklahoma City, a lower median income, lower property values, and poorer quality housing—all factors associated with increased risk for residential fire. In addition to smoke alarms, the recipients received educational information on the prevention of residential fires and information about installation and maintenance of smoke alarms. The total cost of the smoke alarm giveaway program was calculated to be $530,611. Using Oklahoma burn surveillance data on fire-related injuries that occurred during the preintervention period, the authors calculated that 20 fatal and 24 nonfatal residential fire injuries were prevented during the 5-year period and were attributable to the smoke alarm giveaway. This translated into savings of almost $1.5 million in medical costs and more than $14 million in productivity losses from those who would have died. From a health care system perspective, the effectiveness of the program would need to decrease by at least 64% before it would cease to be cost-effective. The smoke alarm giveaway program would continue to be cost-effective in communities with residential fire injury prevalence rates up to 80% lower than that in the targeted Oklahoma City area. The authors conclude that the smoke alarm giveaway program was an effective and economically beneficial measure to prevent fatal and non-fatal residential fire-related injuries. Interestingly, the authors also noted that at follow-up evaluation 4 years later only 58% of households that participated in the giveaway program had a functional smoke alarm. The United States has one of the highest fire-related death rates of all industrialized nations.1 Fires and burns cause more than 1,000 pediatric deaths in the United States annually. Fire, and resulting burns, is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death (after motor vehicles) in children 1 to 9 years of age, with residential fire causing more than 90% of these deaths. The absence of a functioning smoke alarm is a major risk factor for residential fire fatality. Smoke alarm giveaway programs have been shown to reduce fire-related morbidity and mortality rates,2 but the cost-effectiveness of such programs has not been previously assessed. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that families be counseled to install home smoke alarms and to test the batteries monthly.3,4 Unfortunately, studies indicate that such counseling has only a modest effect on smoke alarm ownership or acquisition.5 To influence 1 additional family to purchase a smoke alarm, a health care provider needs to counsel between 13 and 22 families on this issue.5 Even so, given that fire-related injury is the second leading cause of injury death... You do not currently have access to this content.