Background/introduction In July 2015, a routine domestic abuse (DA) prompt was introduced in a busy, walk-in, inner-London, genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic. DA guidelines, proforma and management flowchart were devised. Tiered training was/is provided at a basic level for all staff and in-depth for Sexual Health Information Protection team (SHIP) and DA champions.Auditable outcomes: DA question asked where safe (Target 100%), (SAFE: quiet/confidential space, seen alone, no child > 18 months present, professional interpreter if necessary), Complete DA proforma if DA disclosed (100%), Patient information leaflet (PIL) given if DA > 3/12 ago/no on-going risk (100%), Offered SHIP referral for risk assessment if DA < 3/12 or on-going risk (100%), DA disclosures correctly coded (100%).
Aim(s)/objectives Audit whether DA routine prompt asked, proforma completed, initial management pathway followed and disclosures coded.
Methods Data collected (notes review) on 100 consecutive, new, walk-in, GUM patients > 18 years-old, from 1st October 2015.
Results 59 female, 41 male. 91% patients asked about DA. 9 not asked: 5/41 (12.1%) male, 4/59 (6.8%) female. 9/9: no reason documented explaining omission. 5/91 (5%) disclosed DA (all female). DA proforma completed in 3/5 (60%) (1 patient declined further discussion). 1/4 (25%) had current/on-going risk and referred to SHIP. 3/4 DA occurred > 3/12 ago/no on-going risk: 1 accepted, 1 declined, 1 not offered PIL. 2/5 (40%) DA disclosures coded correctly (using in-house code).
Discussion/conclusion High enquiry rate (male patients less likely to be asked). DA protocol/flow chart followed in the majority of cases (proforma completion and referral to SHIP). There were low levels of accurate coding.
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.