BACKGROUND: While victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) present to health care settings for a variety of complaints; rates and predictors of case identification and intervention are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine emergency department (ED) case finding and response within a known population of abused women. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. SUBJECTS: Police-involved female victims of IPV in a semi-rural Midwestern county. MAIN MEASURES: We linked police, prosecutor, and medical record data to examine characteristics of ED identification and response from 1999-2002; bivariate analyses and logistic regression analyses accounted for the nesting of subjects' with multiple visits. RESULTS: IPV victims (N = 993) generated 3,426 IPV-related police incidents (mean 3.61, median 3, range 1-17) over the 4-year study period; 785 (79%) generated 4,306 ED visits (mean 7.17, median 5, range 1-87), which occurred after the date of a documented IPV assault. Only 384 (9%) ED visits occurred within a week of a police-reported IPV incident. IPV identification in the ED was associated with higher violence severity, being childless and underinsured, more police incidents (mean: 4.2 vs 3.3), and more ED visits (mean: 10.6 vs 5.5) over the 4 years. The majority of ED visits occurring after a documented IPV incident were for medical complaints (3,378, 78.4%), and 72% of this cohort were never identified as victims of abuse. IPV identification was associated with the day of a police incident, transportation by police, self-disclosure of "domestic assault," and chart documentation of mental health and substance abuse issues. When IPV was identified, ED staff provided legally useful documentation (86%), police contact (50%), and social worker involvement (45%), but only assessed safety in 33% of the women and referred them to victim services 25% of the time. CONCLUSION: The majority of police-identified IPV victims frequently use the ED for health care, but are unlikely to be identified or receive any intervention in that setting.
BACKGROUND: While victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) present to health care settings for a variety of complaints; rates and predictors of case identification and intervention are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine emergency department (ED) case finding and response within a known population of abused women. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. SUBJECTS: Police-involved female victims of IPV in a semi-rural Midwestern county. MAIN MEASURES: We linked police, prosecutor, and medical record data to examine characteristics of ED identification and response from 1999-2002; bivariate analyses and logistic regression analyses accounted for the nesting of subjects' with multiple visits. RESULTS: IPV victims (N = 993) generated 3,426 IPV-related police incidents (mean 3.61, median 3, range 1-17) over the 4-year study period; 785 (79%) generated 4,306 ED visits (mean 7.17, median 5, range 1-87), which occurred after the date of a documented IPV assault. Only 384 (9%) ED visits occurred within a week of a police-reported IPV incident. IPV identification in the ED was associated with higher violence severity, being childless and underinsured, more police incidents (mean: 4.2 vs 3.3), and more ED visits (mean: 10.6 vs 5.5) over the 4 years. The majority of ED visits occurring after a documented IPV incident were for medical complaints (3,378, 78.4%), and 72% of this cohort were never identified as victims of abuse. IPV identification was associated with the day of a police incident, transportation by police, self-disclosure of "domestic assault," and chart documentation of mental health and substance abuse issues. When IPV was identified, ED staff provided legally useful documentation (86%), police contact (50%), and social worker involvement (45%), but only assessed safety in 33% of the women and referred them to victim services 25% of the time. CONCLUSION: The majority of police-identified IPV victims frequently use the ED for health care, but are unlikely to be identified or receive any intervention in that setting.
Authors: Ann L Coker; Keith E Davis; Ileana Arias; Sujata Desai; Maureen Sanderson; Heather M Brandt; Paige H Smith Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Debra Houry; Kim Feldhaus; Benjamin Peery; Jean Abbott; Steven R Lowenstein; Sameerah al-Bataa-de-Montero; Saul Levine Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2004-09
Authors: Karin V Rhodes; Jeane Ann Grisso; Melissa Rodgers; Mira Gohel; Marcy Witherspoon; Martha Davis; Sandra Dempsey; Paul Crits-Christoph Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Melissa E Dichter; Anneliese E Sorrentino; Terri N Haywood; Scarlett L Bellamy; Elina Medvedeva; Christopher B Roberts; Katherine M Iverson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Catherine L Kothari; Karin V Rhodes; James A Wiley; Jeffrey Fink; Scott Overholt; Melissa E Dichter; Steven C Marcus; Catherine Cerulli Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2012-04-04
Authors: Hind A Beydoun; Megan Williams; May A Beydoun; Shaker M Eid; Alan B Zonderman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.681