Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letter
Skeletal surveys in intubated patients: does UK clinical practice match national guidelines?
  1. Gerard Leslie Peter Manning1,
  2. Emma Sharpe1,
  3. Alistair Calder2,
  4. Joe Brierley1
  1. 1 Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  2. 2 Radiology Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gerard Leslie Peter Manning, Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1N 3JH, UK; gerard.manning{at}nhs.net

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

The investigation of suspected paediatric non-accidental injury in children under 2 years of age includes a skeletal survey, which is also indicated in older children on a case-by-case basis. In 2018, the UK national standards for the ‘radiological investigation of suspected physical abuse in children’ were updated by relevant radiology and radiography bodies and endorsed by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.1 The standards now mandate a skeletal survey within 72 hours of presentation, ideally within 24 hours. Initial and targeted follow-up images facilitate the crucial timing of any bony injuries that the child has sustained. The medicolegal implications are clear, and ultimately, the child and family’s future may depend on accurate radiological diagnosis.

The standards make little …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @DrGedM

  • Presented at Abstract presented at RCPCH Conference 2023.

  • Contributors The work was initiated by JB and ES, with early involvement of AC and GLPM. ES and JB designed and distributed the survey. GLPM, ES and JB performed result analysis. Write-up was led by GLPM with input from all authors.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.