Introduction In 2008 we showed that our management and documentation of sexual assault (SA) improved significantly with the introduction of a specific proforma and health advisor led care.
Aim To describe SA attendances to our clinic, audit notes against new BASHH guidelines and compare with audit 2008 results.
Methods Retrospective case note review of all SA attendances in 2010. BASHH standards (2011) were used. Exclusion criteria: prior attendance at another GUM clinic post-SA, SA >1-year prior to attendance. Results were compared with previous audit and p values obtained using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests.
Results Of 84 attendances, 87% were female, 92% white, 88% heterosexual, median age was 23 years. 57% were self referrals. 42% had partial or no recollection of the SA. Abstract P157 Table 1 showing comparison of standards between audit 2008 ad 2010 Documentation of standards new since BASHH 2011 guidelines was poor: self harm risk assessment 3.4%, physical injuries 17% and bleeding 0%.
Discussion Proforma use has continued to improve since 2008 and consequently documentation overall is better. Despite this we achieved less than the recommended 100% in some standards. Although adherence to newer BASHH standards was poor, revision of our current proforma to include these should lead to measurable improvement. SA victims were young and worryingly almost half had little or no recollection of the event. Several reported alcohol/drug use prior to assault but also expressed concern around drink spiking. GUM clinics should work closely with other organisations to raise awareness of alcohol misuse and vulnerability to assault.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.