STUDY PURPOSE This study investigates compliance with the Screening Instrument for Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN screening) and the usability of SCAN screening and its follow-up tool (SCAN-FU) for SCAN-positive outcomes, in 9 Emergency Departments (EDs). It aims to address the decline in child maltreatment recognition observed over the past decade in Dutch EDs. METHODS SCAN screening and SCAN-FU were integrated into the ED-workflow and electronic health records (EHRs), supported by an implementation strategy, e-learning, policy manuals, and an awareness campaign. Compliance was evaluated by comparing pre- and post-implementation screening rates, with clinically relevant improvement defined as a ≥10% increase. Usability was assessed using the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations and semi-structured interviews. Subgroup analyses were conducted by hospital type, EHR, profession type, and years of working experience. RESULTS After implementation the average compliance rate increased from 57.5% to 70.5%, with 3 of 8 sites achieving a ≥10% improvement. Compliance rates varied by site, with academic EDs benefiting most. Compliance was influenced by EHR configurations. Usability analysis identified five facilitators (perception of responsibility, social support, self-efficacy, knowledge, and formal ratification by management) and one barrier (unsettled organisation). Users considered SCAN screening and SCAN-FU user-friendly, though perceived support differed between nurses and physicians due to role-specific factors. RELEVANCE SCAN screening can improve compliance in recognising child maltreatment, but tailored strategies are needed for further implementation. SCANs standardised approach enhances uniform data collection, enabling comparative analysis and interdisciplinary collaboration, advancing early detection of child maltreatment.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study was supported by ZonMw grant number 10260022010004.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) of the University Medical Centre Utrecht classified this study as exempt according to the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (MREC protocol number 20-828/C).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript