Intimate Partner Violence Documentation and Awareness in an Urban Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Domestic violence rates in smaller cities have been reported to be some of the highest in Canada. It is highly likely that the staff at emergency departments (ED) will come in contact with victims of intimate partner violence in their daily practice. The purpose of this study is to better understand current practices for detecting intimate partner violence, staff awareness and knowledge regarding intimate partner violence, and barriers to questioning about intimate partner violence in the ED. Methods A standardized retrospective chart review captured domestic violence documentation rates in patients presenting to the ED, and a cross-sectional online survey was distributed to the ED staff. Results We found documentation about intimate partner violence in 4.64% of all included patient charts. No documentation was noted in the domestic violence field. Significantly, 16.4% of the ED staff reported never questioning female patients about intimate partner violence; 83.6% enquired when they thought it appropriate, and none asked routinely. None of the staff used a structured screening tool, and 81.8% of the ED staff had not received any formal training. Partner presence was the most common barrier to asking about intimate partner violence, followed by a lack of access to domestic violence management information, and a lack of knowledge regarding intimate partner violence. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the current documentation tools are not being properly utilized. Low rates of intimate partner violence documentation in high-risk patients and lack of education indicate that there is a need to improve current practices. In order to improve identification of this important problem, appropriate training and education about intimate partner/domestic violence are required to increase staff comfort as well as knowledge about available community resources for the victims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".