You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Secondary survey in paediatric trauma
  1. Clare Mc Auley1,
  2. Stephen Mullen1,
  3. Lisa Corley2,
  4. Roisin McDonald1,
  5. Nuala Quinn2,3
  1. 1 Paediatric Emergency Department, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Belfast, UK
  2. 2 Emergency Department, Temple Street Children's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  3. 3 National Office for Trauma Services, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Clare Mc Auley, Paediatric Emergency Department, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK; Clare.mcauley1{at}gmail.com

Abstract

The purpose of a secondary survey is to identify the non–life-threatening injuries that are not a priority in the primary survey, but if missed could have long-term impacts for the patient. This article provides a structured approach of the head-to-toe examination required for the secondary survey. We follow the journey of a 9-year-old boy, Peter, who was involved in an accident—electric scooter versus car. After resuscitation and primary survey, you have been asked to carry out the secondary survey. This is a guide of the steps to follow in order to carry out a comprehensive examination to ensure nothing is missed. It highlights the importance of good communication and documentation.

  • paediatrics
  • paediatric emergency medicine

Data availability statement

No data are available.

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2022-324983

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.

    Data availability statement

    No data are available.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @lisacorley_, @DrNualaQuinn

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the final manuscript. CMA wrote the manuscript in consultation with SM and RMD which was reviewed by LC and NQ.

    • 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; externally peer reviewed.