BACKGROUND: Doctors working in emergency services often fulfill the task of preparing judicial reports. For a number of reasons, these reports have undesirable mistakes that become problematic in subsequent judicial processes. This study aimed to evaluate the judicial reports that were prepared over a certain period at a university hospital with regard to any mistakes or deficiencies. METHODS: The distribution of the judicial reports prepared between 01 June 2005 and 30 June 2009 in the emergency service of a University Research and Training Hospital was determined with respect to the types of cases, and their contents were studied for mistakes, deficiencies and legibility. Out of 3499 visits to the emergency service during the specified period, 3219 judicial reports that were accessible were considered in the evaluation. RESULTS: It was determined that the most frequent types of cases were traffic accidents and injuries by sharp and penetrating instruments. Furthermore, many mistakes were made frequently regarding the presence of life-threatening conditions, and personal identification information and times of the event and examination were often incomplete. CONCLUSION: The fact that the doctors largely failed to prepare precise reports and tended to write unsatisfactory reports even for cases with adequate information and findings was attributed to their insufficient training in this area. At the same time, mistakes in life-threatening situations and in treatment by using simple medical interventions stem from lack of training and sensibility. Pre- and post-graduate forensic medicine education must be considered highly important, and periodic on-the-job training must be organized, creating a better awareness among doctors regarding their legal responsibilities.
BACKGROUND: Doctors working in emergency services often fulfill the task of preparing judicial reports. For a number of reasons, these reports have undesirable mistakes that become problematic in subsequent judicial processes. This study aimed to evaluate the judicial reports that were prepared over a certain period at a university hospital with regard to any mistakes or deficiencies. METHODS: The distribution of the judicial reports prepared between 01 June 2005 and 30 June 2009 in the emergency service of a University Research and Training Hospital was determined with respect to the types of cases, and their contents were studied for mistakes, deficiencies and legibility. Out of 3499 visits to the emergency service during the specified period, 3219 judicial reports that were accessible were considered in the evaluation. RESULTS: It was determined that the most frequent types of cases were traffic accidents and injuries by sharp and penetrating instruments. Furthermore, many mistakes were made frequently regarding the presence of life-threatening conditions, and personal identification information and times of the event and examination were often incomplete. CONCLUSION: The fact that the doctors largely failed to prepare precise reports and tended to write unsatisfactory reports even for cases with adequate information and findings was attributed to their insufficient training in this area. At the same time, mistakes in life-threatening situations and in treatment by using simple medical interventions stem from lack of training and sensibility. Pre- and post-graduate forensic medicine education must be considered highly important, and periodic on-the-job training must be organized, creating a better awareness among doctors regarding their legal responsibilities.