Background/introduction A large GUM clinic introduced a sexual assault pro forma to improve the management of patients alleging sexual assault.
Aim(s)/objectives To compare standard of care of complainants of sexual assault with and without use of pro forma.
Methods A retrospective review of patient records with evidence of first disclosure of sexual assault was undertaken for an eight month period. Data on 16 outcomes including 14 nationally auditable standards was analysed against use of the pro forma. Data analysis was performed using Stata. Data collection will be extended to twelve months.
Results 65 patients were included. A pro forma was only completed in 58%. The following outcomes were significantly associated with pro forma use: HIV risk assessment (p = <0.001), detailed history of assault (p = <0.001), offer of hepatitis B vaccine (p = 0.03) and completion of self-harm assessment (p = <0.001). Other outcomes supporting pro forma use were risk assessment of vulnerability (p = <0.001) and offer of psychological support (p = <0.001). STI testing specifically for hepatitis C and trichomonas vaginalis was below the national auditable standard in both groups.
Discussion/conclusion The use of a pro forma has improved clinical care of complainants of sexual assault. Poor uptake of use of the pro forma within the clinic needs to be addressed. Amendments to the pro forma may improve outcomes such as increasing offer of testing for hepatitis C and trichomonas vaginalis.