Swimming Pool Related Drowning Among 0–4 Year Olds Miami-Dade County Florida 2000–2005

Purpose To describe the factors leading up to swimming pool drowning among 0–4 year olds in Miami-Dade County. Methods Medical examiner record reviews were conducted for all drowning incidents between 2000 and 2005 among children 0-4 years of age in Miami-Dade County (N=40). A data extraction tool was created to collect data from the medical examiner records. The record reviews identified 29 swimming pool related drowning events. Descriptive analysis of pool related drowning was performed by age, sex, race, season, location of pool, pool barriers present, supervision at time of incident, and approximate time child was left unsupervised before being found in pool. Results The majority (38%) of drowning incidents occurred in children 1 year of age followed by 2 year olds with 28%. Over 2/3 were male and over 1/3 were Black. In most instances it was unknown whether a pool barrier was present. The month of May had the highest number of drowning incidents. Eighteen children drowned in their own family pool, seven were at anotherʹs pool (relative, friend, or neighbor), three were at apartment pools, and one at a public pool. Eight pools had some kind of fence or gate around the pool, however, two were unlocked and two others were unkempt. Nearly 65% of children were in the care of an adult during the time of the incident while 35% were left in the care of other children (siblings or cousins). Time data was available for 23 of the drowning incidents. Of these, 2/5 of children were missing for less than 15 minutes and 1/5 were missing for over 2 hours before being found in the pool. Conclusion In many instances the presence of a barrier was not mentioned. Moreover, when there was a barrier, half were either not working properly, in disrepair, or left open. Also of concern was the large number of children left under the responsibility of other children. Additionally, many caregivers did not keep the child within their sight. Some caregivers were distracted (at a party, on the phone, washing dishes, in the bathroom, or on the computer), while others assumed the child was being watched by another family member.