BACKGROUND: Few studies of intimate partner violence (IPV) interventions have been conducted in primary care settings. Based on recommendations, we implemented a multifaceted IPV intervention that included a sticker placed in medical charts listing screening questions, routine IPV screening by nursing staff, clinician follow-up for women screening positive, and referral to on-site services. METHODS: A prospective cohort study compared multiple measures collected at the intervention site and a center providing usual care. Measures included self-reported IPV, documented IPV screening and IPV experiences, and quantity of IPV materials taken from the centers. RESULTS: Of 746 charts reviewed in a random chart review conducted at the intervention site, 36.6% were tagged for IPV screening, and of those tagged, 86.1% had documentation of screening. Approximately 5% (11 of 235) of women screened positive for IPV; about half had documented clinician follow-up and referral to on-site services. Comparison of survey responses and medical record reviews (intervention site) indicated that the screening protocol primarily identified severely abused women (sensitivity 80%, specificity 98%), but rarely identified women experiencing low to moderate levels of abuse. IPV brochures were taken from the intervention site at a rate of 51 per 1000 visits versus 29 per 1000 visits taken from the control site. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing screening as the only gateway to on-site services limited access for many IPV victims. The removal of IPV brochures from examination rooms suggests that providing contact information for self-referral to on-site services may improve access.
BACKGROUND: Few studies of intimate partner violence (IPV) interventions have been conducted in primary care settings. Based on recommendations, we implemented a multifaceted IPV intervention that included a sticker placed in medical charts listing screening questions, routine IPV screening by nursing staff, clinician follow-up for women screening positive, and referral to on-site services. METHODS: A prospective cohort study compared multiple measures collected at the intervention site and a center providing usual care. Measures included self-reported IPV, documented IPV screening and IPV experiences, and quantity of IPV materials taken from the centers. RESULTS: Of 746 charts reviewed in a random chart review conducted at the intervention site, 36.6% were tagged for IPV screening, and of those tagged, 86.1% had documentation of screening. Approximately 5% (11 of 235) of women screened positive for IPV; about half had documented clinician follow-up and referral to on-site services. Comparison of survey responses and medical record reviews (intervention site) indicated that the screening protocol primarily identified severely abused women (sensitivity 80%, specificity 98%), but rarely identified women experiencing low to moderate levels of abuse. IPV brochures were taken from the intervention site at a rate of 51 per 1000 visits versus 29 per 1000 visits taken from the control site. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing screening as the only gateway to on-site services limited access for many IPV victims. The removal of IPV brochures from examination rooms suggests that providing contact information for self-referral to on-site services may improve access.
Authors: Ann L Coker; Vicki C Flerx; Paige H Smith; Daniel J Whitaker; Mary Kay Fadden; Melinda Williams Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-05-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Daniel J Tancredi; Jay G Silverman; Michele R Decker; Heather L McCauley; Heather A Anderson; Kelley A Jones; Samantha Ciaravino; Angela Hicks; Claire Raible; Sarah Zelazny; Lisa James; Elizabeth Miller Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 2.809