Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians Research Articles

Standardizing Child Passenger Safety Screening in the Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Study.

Motor vehicle collisions remain a leading cause of death and injury in children in the United States. Our Level I trauma center found that 53% of children ages 1-19 years are improperly restrained or unrestrained. Our center employs a Pediatric Injury Prevention Coalition with nationally certified child passenger safety technicians who are active in the community yet remain underutilized in the clinical setting. The purpose of the quality improvement project was to standardize child passenger safety screening in the emergency department to increase referrals to a Pediatric Injury Prevention Coalition. This quality improvement project utilized a pre-/postdesign of data collected before and after implementing the child passenger safety bundle. Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act model, organizational change processes were identified, and quality improvement interventions implemented from March to May 2022. The total number of families referred was 199, representing 230 children, which was 3.8% of the eligible population. A significant relationship was found between child passenger safety screening and referral to the Pediatric Injury Prevention Coalition in 2019 and 2021, χ2 (1, n = 230) = 239.98, p < .001, and χ2 (1, n = 230) = 240.78, p < .001, respectively. Forty-one percent of the referred families established contact with the Pediatric Injury Prevention Coalition. Standardizing child passenger safety screening in the emergency department increased referrals to a Pediatric Injury Prevention Coalition and resulted in improved child safety seat distribution and child passenger safety education.

Parental Knowledge of Appropriate Placement of Child Restraint Systems Before and After Educational Intervention in a Pediatric Emergency Department

This study aimed to determine caregiver's knowledge of appropriate car restraint systems (CRSs) use and compare this with the actual use among children presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED), and to determine the efficacy of PED-based intervention on improving knowledge. We conducted a prospective, intervention study of children (<8 years old) during a 12-month period in the PED. Based on their height and weight, children were assigned to group 1 (rear facing), group 2 (forward facing), or group 3 (booster). Caregivers were surveyed in their baseline CRS knowledge. Certified child passenger safety technicians evaluated each CRS and gave caregivers one-on-one education. Participants were called back to answer a posttest to determine if the information given was retained. Of the 170 children enrolled, 64 (37.6%) were assigned to group 1, 68 (40%) to group 2, and 38 (22.3%) to group 3. Of these, 63% were not aware of the state law regarding CRS use. Among those without a CRS, 18% belonged to group 1, 36% to group 2, and 46% to group 3. Even among those who reportedly had CRS, 13% of children did not have one-on-on inspection. After inspection, 84% of group 1, 71% of group 2, and 70% of group 3 were in the appropriate one. Nearly 45% were not compliant with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines of children riding in rear-facing CRS until 2 years of age. A significant proportion of children visiting the PED are not in appropriate CRS, and caretaker knowledge about correct CRS types and installation is poor. Future educational efforts should focus on rear-facing and booster seat age-group children.

Usability of non-standard lower anchor configurations for child restraint system (CRS) installation

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine whether the amount of tension required for proper child restraint system (CRS) installation varies with lower anchor spacing and to determine whether nonexperts can produce adequate tension on wider-than-standard lower anchor configurations.Methods: CRSs were installed by certified child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs; n = 6 subjects, n = 72 installations) and nonexperts (n = 30 subjects, n = 120 installations) on a mock-up vehicle seat fixture with lower anchors set at 11 (standard), 15, 19, and 23 in. apart from one another. Each CPST installed a rear-facing (RF) infant base, RF convertible, and forward-facing (FF) convertible into each of the 4 spacing configurations in random order. The CPSTs were instructed to tighten the lower connector strap until the tension was exactly at the threshold between passing and failing the 1-in. test. Each nonexpert installed one CRS model into all 4 spacing conditions in random order. Nonexperts were instructed to install the CRS to the best of their ability. The tension produced on the lower connector strap was recorded via load cell in the lower anchor assembly of the vehicle seat. Resultant tension magnitudes were compared across spacing conditions using matched pair t-tests. The CPSTs’ mean 1-in. test threshold values were compared to tensions produced by nonexperts. Installations were visually evaluated for errors and qualitative usability feedback was collected via survey.Results: CPSTs installed the infant base with higher tensions in the 15-, 19-, and 23-in. configurations compared to the standard 11-in. configuration (P = .034, .032, and .003, respectively). The nonexperts installed the infant base with higher tension in the 15- and 23-in. configurations compared to the 11-in. configuration (P = .004 and .026, respectively). The RF convertible and FF convertible installations showed no significant differences in tension among any of the spacing configurations for either group. Only 19% of the nonexperts’ installations were tight enough to pass CPST thresholds, and the pass rate did not vary with respect to lower anchor spacing. In feedback surveys, the nonexpert group did not show a consistent preference for either standard or wider-than-standard lower anchor configurations.Conclusions: The amount of tension required to pass the 1-in. rule did not vary with lower anchor spacing configurations for the RF and FF convertible CRS, but the infant base required more tension in wider anchor configurations. Nonexperts tended to produce less than ideal tension in all configurations, although their tension magnitudes increased for the infant base in wider configurations.

Trends in child passenger safety practices in Indiana from 2009-2015

Objective: This study reviews trends in rear facing direction, top tether use, booster seat use and seating position for children 12 years or younger among motor vehicle passengers in Indiana. Methods: This is an observational, cross-sectional survey of drivers transporting children 15 years and younger collected at 25 convenience locations randomly selected in Indiana during summers 2009-2015. Observations were conducted by Certified Child Passenger Safety Technicians (CPST). ). As the driver completed a written survey collecting demographic data on …

Trends in child passenger safety practices in Indiana from 2009 to 2015

ABSTRACTObjective: This study reviews trends in rear-facing direction, top tether use, booster seat use, and seating position for children 12 years or younger among motor vehicle passengers in Indiana.Methods: This is an observational, cross-sectional survey of drivers transporting children 15 years and younger collected at 25 convenience locations randomly selected in Indiana during summers of 2009–2015. Observations were conducted by certified child passenger safety technicians (CPST). As the driver completed a written survey collecting demographic data on the driver, the CPST recorded the child demographic data, vehicle seating location, the type of restraint, direction the car safety seat (CSS) was facing, and use of the CSS harness or safety belt as appropriate. Data were analyzed for infants and toddlers younger than 24 months, children in forward-facing CSS, booster seat use, and seating position for children 12 years or younger.Results: During the study period, 4,876 drivers were queried, and 7,725 children 15 years and younger were observed in motor vehicles. Between 2009 and 2015, 1,115 infants and toddlers (age birth to 23 months) were observed in motor vehicles. For infants <1 year, rear-facing increased from 84% to 91%. During the study years the greatest increase in rear facing was for toddlers age 12–17 months (12–61%). Rear facing for those from 18–23 months did not significantly change. Of the 1,653 vehicles observed with a forward-facing car seat, using either the seat belt system or lower anchors, an average of 27% had the top tether attached. For installations of forward-facing seats using the lower anchor, 66% employed the top tether. Among children age 4–7 years observed booster seat use decreased from 72% to 65% during the observation period. Finally, for vehicle seating position, in our sample, more than 85% of children 12 years or younger were seated in a rear seat vehicle position. Unfortunately, 31% of 8- to 12-year-old children were observed in the front seat.Conclusions: Overall, these trends demonstrate an improvement in child passenger safety practices among Indiana drivers. However, this study illuminates areas to improve child passenger safety, such as rear facing for toddlers 18 to 23 months, increasing top tether use, booster seat use, and an emphasis on rear seat position for children 8 to 12 years. This information can be used by primary care providers and child passenger safety technicians and other child passenger safety advocates to develop counseling points and targeted educational campaigns.

Using interactive virtual presence to support accurate installation of child restraints: Efficacy and parental perceptions

IntroductionChild restraint systems (car seats) reduce injury risk for young children involved in motor-vehicle crashes, but parents experience significant difficulty installing child restraints correctly. Installation by certified child passenger safety (CPS) technicians yields more accurate installation, but is impractical for broad distribution. A potential solution is use of interactive virtual presence via smartphone application (app), which permits “hands on” teaching through simultaneous and remote joint exposure to 3-dimensional images. MethodIn two studies, we examined the efficacy of remote communication via interactive virtual presence to help parents install child restraints. Study 1 was conducted at existing car seat checkpoints and Study 2 at preschools/daycare centers. In both cases, existing installations were assessed by certified CPS technicians using an objective coding scheme. Participants then communicated with remotely-located certified CPS technicians via a smartphone app offering interactive virtual presence. Technicians instructed participants to install child restraints and then the installation was inspected by on-site technicians. Both before and after the remote interaction, participants completed questionnaires concerning perception of child restraints and child restraint installation, self-efficacy to install child restraints, and perceived risk of injury to children if they were in a crash. ResultsIn both studies, accuracy of child restraint installations improved following the remote interaction between participants and certified CPS technicians. Together, the two samples achieved a weighted average of 90% correct installations across a multi-point inspection. Both samples reported increased self-efficacy to install child restraints and altered perceptions about the accuracy of the child restraint installations in their vehicles. ConclusionsFindings support use of interactive virtual presence as a strategy to realize accurate installation of child restraints. Practical applicationsInteractive virtual presence between certified CPS technicians and the public via smartphone app has potential to improve proper child restraint installations broadly, including to vulnerable and underserved rural populations.

Unsafe from the Start: Serious Misuse of Car Safety Seats at Newborn Discharge

To estimate prevalence of car safety seat (CSS) misuse for newborns on hospital discharge; and to identify potential risk and protective factors for CSS misuse. We randomly sampled 291 mother-baby dyads from the newborn unit of an academic health center. Participants completed a survey and designated someone (themselves or another caregiver) to position their newborn in the CSS and install the CSS in their vehicle. Certified child passenger safety technicians assessed positioning and installation using nationally standardized criteria. To examine factors associated with CSS misuse, we used logistic regression to compute ORs and 95% CIs. A total of 291 families (81% of those eligible) participated. Nearly all (95%) CSSs were misused, with 1 or more errors in positioning (86%) and/or installation (77%). Serious CSS misuse occurred for 91% of all infants. Frequent misuses included harness and chest clip errors, incorrect recline angle, and seat belt/lower anchor use errors. Families with mothers of color (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.8-21.6), non-English language (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.1-21.2), Medicaid (OR, 10.3; 95% CI, 2.4-44.4), or lower educational level (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.7-12.4) were more likely to misuse CSSs. However, families that worked with a child passenger safety technician before delivery were significantly less likely to misuse their CSSs (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.4). Nearly all parents of newborn infants misused CSSs. Resources should be devoted to ensuring families with newborns leave the hospital correctly using their CSS.

Safely Transporting Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evaluation and Intervention

The purpose of this study was to investigate transportation practices of caregivers who transport children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We reviewed documented transportation evaluations of children with ASD. The evaluations were conducted by pediatric occupational therapists at an outpatient center of a large children's hospital. A review of 82 charts of patients diagnosed with ASD revealed that 74% of children with ASD were escaping their child safety restraint. More than 20% of parents reported that their child demonstrated aggressive or self-injurious behavior during travel, affecting not only their own safety but also that of others in the vehicle, including the driver. Escaping from a child restraint can be a life-threatening problem among children with ASD. Parents, caregivers, and health care professionals should be aware of services available from trained therapists, certified child passenger safety technicians, or both to maximize safety during personal travel in the family vehicle.

Are parents following the recommendations for keeping children younger than 2 years rear facing during motor vehicle travel?

PurposeBetween 2007 and 2012 there have been several recommendations that infants and toddlers ride in a car safety seat (CSS) rear facing until 2 years of age. This study reports...

Grandparents and child passenger safety

PurposeThis study compares child passenger safety (CPS) practices of grandparents versus parents and determines grandparents’ opinions on car safety seats (CSS), barriers to use, and ways to transport grandchildren safely. MethodsObservational surveys were conducted on a convenience sample of drivers transporting children younger than sixteen years at 25 locations by certified child passenger safety technicians observing children in motor vehicles and recorded use of child passenger restraints. The drivers were surveyed on their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices regarding CPS. Data from drivers identifying themselves as grandparents were analyzed; also, three grandparent focus groups provided opinions on CPS practices. ResultsDuring the study 1758 parents transporting 2713 children and 284 grandparents transporting 391 grandchildren were included. While most drivers were restrained and used child occupant restraints, almost 25% of parents and grandparents chose the incorrect seat to transport the child, and greater than 68% had at least one harness error. Grandparents were more likely to have looser lower anchor straps or seat belts and have children younger than thirteen years in the front seat.The focus group-grandparents had a favorable attitude toward CSS. Grandparents acknowledged the need for CSS but opined that CSS were difficult to use. Physical barriers included arthritis, back pain, mobility, decreased strength, and vision problems. ConclusionsGrandparents and parents were equally likely to use CSS and choose correct seats. Compared to parents, grandparents were more likely to travel with their grandchildren with CSS installed with looser harnesses or an installed CSS with looser seat belt or lower anchors. Additionally, grandparents were more likely to have a child younger than thirteen years in the front seat. The use of community resources such as permanent fitting stations could help grandparents improve a grandchild's travel safety.

Observed use of tethers in forward-facing child restraint systems

BackgroundUse of top tethers with forward-facing child restraints is a simple way for parents to keep their children safer when travelling in passenger vehicles, but tether use remains low.ObjectivesTo obtain...

Reliability and Validity of Child Passenger Safety Restraint Observations by Community Observers

Objective: To compare the accuracy of trained community observers for direct observation of child passenger restraint use to certified child passenger safety technicians who are either professional observers or community-based technicians, and to compare these three groups with a gold standard. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of interobserver agreement and accuracy in which 75 photos of children depicted in different child passenger restraint systems were rated by 9 observers total, with 3 representing professional observers, 3 representing certified child passenger safety technicians, and 3 representing trained community observers. For each photo, observers indicated type of restraint; the appropriateness of the harness, if applicable; and overall appropriateness of the restraint. A gold standard was established by consensus agreement of 2 certified car seat technician instructors. Results: The sensitivity and specificity for trained community observers in identifying broad groupings of restraint types was good (78–100% sensitivity; 93–99% specificity), but they had low agreement with the gold standard for overall appropriateness of the child passenger restraints (kappa = 0.28). The community observer group was 42 percent less likely to code the photo depiction of appropriate restraint use as appropriate. Conclusion: Community trained observers do show good sensitivity and specificity for identifying the type of restraint but have a trend toward poorer judgment when determining harness appropriateness and overall appropriateness. They may be a cost-effective option for limited restraint identification.

Transporting Children in Wheelchairs in Passenger Vehicles: A Comparison of Best Practice to Observed and Reported Practice in a Pilot Sample

We compared observed and reported practice among children with special health care needs transported in wheelchairs with the recommendations from the American National Standards Institute/Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America Committee on Wheelchairs and Transportation voluntary standards for best practice for using wheelchairs in vehicles. A convenience sample of vehicles exiting the garage of a children's hospital was observed. Certified child passenger safety technicians gathered driver demographics and the child's reported medical condition, weight, age, clinic visited, and relation to the driver. Technicians observed how the wheelchair and occupant were secured. A sample of 20 vehicles showed that 90% used four-point tie-down systems to secure the wheelchairs. A total of 88% of drivers tied the wheelchairs down correctly; only 20% used a separate lap-shoulder belts to secure the occupants. Twenty-five percent used lap trays, which are not recommended. Fifteen participants traveled with medical equipment secured inappropriately. Many deviations from best practice were observed and highlight areas for increased awareness, education, and resources for caregivers.

Transporting Children With Special Health Care Needs: Comparing Recommendations and Practice

We compare the use of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines for the safe transportation of children with special health care needs (CSHCN) with reported and observed practices. This observational study was based on a convenience sample of vehicles exiting the garage of a tertiary children's hospital. Certified child passenger safety technicians with a health care background and specialized training in the transportation of CSHCN gathered the driver's demographic information and the child's reported medical condition, weight, age, clinic visited, and relation to the driver. The safety technicians observed the car safety seat (CSS) type, vehicle seating position, and if the child required postural support. During the study, 275 drivers transporting 294 CSHCN were observed. Overall, most drivers complied with AAP recommendations by using a standard CSS seat (75.4%). Among the seats evaluated, 241 (82.0%) were the appropriate choice, but only 75 (26.8%) of 280 assessed had no misuses. Approximately 24% of the drivers modified the CSS, and 19.4% of the children would have benefited from additional body-positioning support. Only 8% of medical equipment was properly secured. Although most drivers seemed to choose the appropriate seat, many had at least 1 misuse. Drivers complied with most AAP recommendations; however, some deviated to facilitate care of the child during transport. Discussions with parents or caregivers about the proper transportation of CSHCN and referrals to child passenger safety technicians with special training may improve safety, care, and comfort in the vehicle.

Providing car seat checks with well-child visits at an urban health center: a pilot study

Objective:To evaluate a pilot program of providing child restraint system (CRS) checks by certified technicians with well-child care in an urban health center serving a low-income community.Methods:During well-child care, nationally...