A thoughts come to mind.
Abused children tend to have multiple A&E attendances because they're more likely to be seen by a different doctor each time and hence each "incident" eg a bruise, a fracture etc is viewed as a separate incidence. A GP would (or should) pick something like this up earlier. A&E systems tend to have a record of attendances in the last twelve months, or the five most recent attendances which helps pick up people who attend all the time.
Because of A&E attendances now being logged, people will often visit to other hospitals out of the system. For example, three hospitals within the same trust will often run the same systems so the same information can be seen. Consequently if a person attends hospital 3, their attendances at hospitals 1 and 2 will be known about. If they move to another trust, the hospitals will not have any information about their attendances at hospitals 1,2 and 3.
National cross-cover will help with abused children who are moved around but at the same time, may increase the risk to children because they are likely to not be brought when they should be. At least if they present to an out-of-area hospital, they will receive medical treatment.
Not sure what they want us to do. If I suspect a child may be being abused, I will liaise with the child protection lead for the area and/or social services. If I feel the child is at high-risk, I call the police. I
cannot take the child. I
cannot harm the abusive carer unless in self defence and only at minimal force.
I suspect, as much of this kind of thing (eg revalidation), is started with the best of hopes but will fail abysmally because it can be circumvented or manipulated in some way, or that it is there to merely "tick the box".