Elham Saberi1, Nicole Eather2, Sharene Pascoe3, Mary-Louise McFadzean2, Frances Doran4, Marie Hutchinson5. 1. Northern New South Wales Local Health District, PO Box 498, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia. Electronic address: ellie.saberi@ncahs.health.gov.au. 2. Northern New South Wales Local Health District, PO Box 498, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia. 3. Northern New South Wales Local Health District, PO Box 498, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia; University Centre for Rural Health North Coast, PO Box 480, Lismore, NSW, 2480, Australia. 4. Southern Cross University, Rifle Range Rd, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. 5. Southern Cross University, Hogbin Drive, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 2450, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domestic violence (DV) has significant health impacts for victims and their families. Despite evidence that routine screening increases the identification of DV and opportunities for support; routine screening is uncommon in Australian emergency departments (EDs). This study explored ED clinicians' level of support for DV screening; current screening practices; and perceived barriers and readiness to screen prior to a pilot intervention. METHODS: Census survey of 76 ED clinicians. A number of questionnaire items were generated through a review of the literature, with readiness to screen for DV assessed through the short version of the Domestic Violence Healthcare Provider Scale [1]. The confidential and anonymous online survey was hosted on the Qualtrics platform. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 22. RESULTS: Most clinicians supported screening for DV in the ED. In the absence of protocols, 72.3% (n=55) of clinicians reported currently engaging in case-based screening, which preferenced women with physical injury. The majority did not always feel comfortable screening for DV (79.7% n=59) and reported they had received insufficient training for this role (88.7% n=55). Lower perceived self-efficacy and fear of offending were statistically associated with discomfort or negative beliefs about DV enquiry (p=<0.05). CONCLUSION: Emergency department clinicians reported feeling ill-equipped and under-prepared to inquire about and respond to DV. These findings provide valuable insight about the training and support needs of ED clinicians prior to the commencement of routine screening in EDs.
BACKGROUND: Domestic violence (DV) has significant health impacts for victims and their families. Despite evidence that routine screening increases the identification of DV and opportunities for support; routine screening is uncommon in Australian emergency departments (EDs). This study explored ED clinicians' level of support for DV screening; current screening practices; and perceived barriers and readiness to screen prior to a pilot intervention. METHODS: Census survey of 76 ED clinicians. A number of questionnaire items were generated through a review of the literature, with readiness to screen for DV assessed through the short version of the Domestic Violence Healthcare Provider Scale [1]. The confidential and anonymous online survey was hosted on the Qualtrics platform. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 22. RESULTS: Most clinicians supported screening for DV in the ED. In the absence of protocols, 72.3% (n=55) of clinicians reported currently engaging in case-based screening, which preferenced women with physical injury. The majority did not always feel comfortable screening for DV (79.7% n=59) and reported they had received insufficient training for this role (88.7% n=55). Lower perceived self-efficacy and fear of offending were statistically associated with discomfort or negative beliefs about DV enquiry (p=<0.05). CONCLUSION: Emergency department clinicians reported feeling ill-equipped and under-prepared to inquire about and respond to DV. These findings provide valuable insight about the training and support needs of ED clinicians prior to the commencement of routine screening in EDs.
Authors: Carrigan L Parish; Margaret R Pereyra; Stephen N Abel; Karolynn Siegel; Harold A Pollack; Lisa R Metsch Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Encarnación Martínez-García; Verónica Montiel-Mesa; Belén Esteban-Vilchez; Beatriz Bracero-Alemany; Adelina Martín-Salvador; María Gázquez-López; María Ángeles Pérez-Morente; María Adelaida Alvarez-Serrano Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 3.390