English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Introduction:  Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health concern with complex medico-legal implications and a wide range of morbidity. While the ED is often the primary access point for these patients, IPV is under-recognized. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of female IPV patients in the ED and determine the assessment and management patterns of physicians at a tertiary care academic ED.  Methods:  We conducted a health records review of adult (&gt;18years) female patients seen at a tertiary care hospital ED presenting with evidence of IPV from January to September 2016. A combined search strategy of hospital records and Sexual Assault and Partner Abuse Care Program (SAPACP) patient rosters was used to identify study subjects. Data were collected for patient demographic/presenting characteristics, assault characteristics, and patterns of referral, management and patient disposition/discharge. Descriptive statistics were generated.  Results:  100 patients met inclusion criteria with; mean age 35.1, female 100.0%, arrival by ambulance 53.0%, and mean CTAS level of 2.4. Abuse screening was completed at triage only 24.0% of the time. Presenting complaints were varied, with the most common being injury or trauma (32.0%). Most patients were only identified from the SAPACP roster. Patients reported strangulation, a strong predictor of future homicide, in 34.0% of cases. Admission to hospital occurred in 7.0% of cases with 19.0% involving specialist consultation and 7.0% leaving against medical advice or without being seen. Legal interactions including police involvement occurred 72.0% of the time and Childrens Aid Society was involved in 26.0% of cases. The final diagnosis was recorded as IPV or equivalent in only 49.0% of cases; the remainder were discharged with a final diagnosis of injury/trauma (26.0%), sexual assault (6.0%), somatic complaint (6.0%), mental health (8.0%), substance use/abuse (3.0%) or other (2.0%).  Conclusion:  Our study highlights that IPV is a common and heterogeneous entity with a wide spectrum of presentations and morbidity. Strangulation rates were high and are associated with increased risk of homicide. IPV is currently under-recognized and continues to carry stigma as ER physicians only recorded a discharge diagnosis of IPV or equivalent in half of cases. Educational strategies are required to highlight the importance of IPV to ED staff.

P013: Management of intimate partner violence in the emergency department