How and why community hospital clinicians document a positive screen for intimate partner violence: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: This two-part study examines primary care clinicians' chart documentation and attitudes when confronted by a positive waiting room screen for intimate partner violence (IPV). METHODS: Patients at community hospital-affiliated health centers completed a screening questionnaire in waiting rooms that primary care providers (PCPs) were subsequently given at the time of the visit. We first reviewed the medical records of patients who screened positive for IPV, evaluating the presence and quality of documentation. Next we administered a survey to PCPs that measured their knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding IPV. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of charts contained some documentation of IPV, however only 10% contained both a referral and safety plan. PCPs were more likely to refer patients (p < .05) who screened positively for mood or anxiety disorders, disclosed that they feared for their safety or were economically disadvantaged. Those that feared for their safety or endorsed mood or anxiety disorders were more likely to have notation of a safety plan in their records. When surveyed, 81.6% of clinicians strongly agreed that it is their role to inquire about IPV, but only 68% expressed confidence in their ability to manage it. In contrast, 93% expressed confidence in managing depression. Sixty-seven percent identified time constraints as a barrier to care. Predictors of PCP confidence in treating patients who have experienced IPV (p < .05) included hours of recent training and clinical experience with IPV. CONCLUSION: Mandatory waiting room screening for IPV does not result in high levels of referral or safety planning by PCPs. Despite the implementation of a screening process, clinicians lack confidence and time to address IPV in their patient populations suggesting that alternative methods of training and supporting PCPs need to be developed

A knowledge, attitudes, and practice survey among obstetrician-gynaecologists on intimate partner violence in Flanders, Belgium

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) has consistently been found to afflict one in twenty pregnant women and is therefore considered a leading cause of physical injury, mental illness and adverse pregnancy outcome. A general antenatal screening policy has been advocated, though compliance with such guidelines tends to be low. We therefore attempted to identify potential barriers to IPV screening in a context where no guidelines have been instigated yet. METHODS: Questionnaire-based Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice survey among obstetrician-gynaecologists in Flanders, Belgium (n = 478). RESULTS: The response rate was 52.1% (249/478). Gynaecologists prove rather unfamiliar with IPV and therefore largely underestimate the extent of the problem. Merely 6.8% (17/249) of the respondents ever received or pursued any kind of education on IPV. Accordingly they do feel insufficiently skilled to deal with IPV, yet sufficiently capable of recognizing IPV among their patients. Survey participants largely refute the incentive of universal screening in favour of opportunistic screening and do not consider pregnancy as a window of opportunity for routine screening. They do consider screening for IPV as an issue of medical liability and therefore do not suffer from a lack of motivation to screen. In addition, obstetrician-gynaecologists do believe that screening for IPV may be an effective means to counteract abusive behaviours. Yet, their outcome expectancy is weighed down by their perceived lack of self-efficacy in dealing with IPV, by lack of familiarity with referral procedures and by their perceived lack of available referral services. Major external or patient-related barriers to IPV screening included a perceived lack of time and fear of offending or insulting patients. Overall, merely 8.4 % (21/245) of gynaecologists in this survey performed some kind of IPV questioning on a regular basis. Finally, physician education was found to be the strongest predictor of a positive attitude towards screening and of current screening practices. CONCLUSION: Endorsement of physician training on IPV is an important first step towards successful implementation of screening guidelines for IPV. Additional introduction of enabling and reinforcement strategies such as screening tools, patient leaflets, formal referral pathways, and physician feedback may further enhance compliance with screening recommendations and guidelines

[Violence against women attending public health services in the metropolitan area of São Paulo, Brazil].

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of (physical, psychological, and sexual) violence against women by an intimate partner and non-partner perpetrators among users of public health services and to compare these women's perception of having ever experienced violence with reports of violence in their medical records in the different services studied. METHODS: The study was conducted in 19 health services, selected as a convenience sample and grouped into nine research sites, in metropolitan area of São Paulo from 2001 to 2002. Questionnaires on having ever experienced violence in their lifetime and in the last 12 months and perpetrators were applied to a sample of 3,193 users aged 15 to 49. A total of 3,051 medical records were reviewed to verify the notification of violence. Comparative analyses were performed by Anova with multiple comparisons and Chi-square test followed by its partition. RESULTS: The following prevalences were found: any type of violence 76% (95% CI: 74.2; 77.8); psychological 68.9% (95% CI: 66.4; 71.4); physical 49.6% (95% CI: 47.7; 51.4); physical and/or sexual 54.8% (95% CI: 53.1; 56.6), and sexual 26% (95% CI: 24.4; 28.0). The prevalence of physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime was 45.3% (95% CI: 43.5; 47.1), and by non-partners was 25.7% (95% CI: 25.0; 26.5). Only 39.1% of women reporting any episode of violence perceived they had ever experienced violence in their lifetime and 3.8% of them had any reports of violence in their medical records. The prevalences were significantly different between sites as well as the proportion of perception and reports of violence in medical records. CONCLUSIONS: The expected high magnitude of the event and its invisibility was confirmed by low rate of reports in the medical records. Few perceived abuses as violence. Further studies are recommended taking into account the diversity of service users