Association between emergency department resources and diagnosis of intimate partner violence.

OBJECTIVE: There is little information about which intimate partner violence (IPV) policies and services assist in the identification of IPV in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to examine the association between a variety of resources and documented IPV diagnoses. METHODS: Using billing data assembled from 21 Oregon EDs from 2001 to 2005, we identified patients who were assigned a discharge diagnosis of IPV. We then surveyed ED directors and nurse managers to gain information about IPV-related policies and services offered by participating hospitals. We combined billing data, survey results, and hospital-level variables. Multivariate analysis assessed the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of IPV depending on the policies and services available. RESULTS: In 754 597 adult female ED visits, IPV was diagnosed 1929 times. Mandatory IPV screening and victim advocates were the most commonly available IPV resources. The diagnosis of IPV was independently associated with the use of a standardized intervention checklist (odds ratio: 1.71; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-2.82). Public displays regarding IPV were negatively associated with IPV diagnosis (odds ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.88). CONCLUSION: IPV remains a rare documented diagnosis. Most common hospital-level resources did not demonstrate an association with IPV diagnoses; however, a standardized intervention checklist may play a role in clinician's likelihood of diagnosing IPV.

Rural-urban disparities in emergency department intimate partner violence resources.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about availability of resources for managing intimate partner violence (IPV) at rural hospitals. We assessed differences in availability of resources for IPV screening and management between rural and urban emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon. METHODS: We conducted a standardized telephone interview of Oregon ED directors and nurse managers on six IPV-related resources: official screening policies, standardized screening tools, public displays regarding IPV, on-site advocacy, intervention checklists and regular clinician education. We used chi-square analysis to test differences in reported resource availability between urban and rural EDs. RESULTS: Of 57 Oregon EDs, 55 (96%) completed the survey. A smaller proportion of rural EDs, compared to urban EDs, reported official screening policies (74% vs. 100%, p=0.01), standardized screening instruments (21% vs. 55%, p=0.01), clinician education (38% vs. 70%, p=0.02) or on-site violence advocacy (44% vs. 95%, p<0.001). Twenty-seven percent of rural EDs had none or one of the studied resources, 50% had two or three, and 24% had four or more (vs. 0%, 35%, and 65% in urban EDs, p=0.003). Small, remote rural hospitals had fewer resources than larger, less remote rural hospitals or urban hospitals. CONCLUSION: Rural EDs have fewer resources for addressing IPV. Further work is needed to identify specific barriers to obtaining resources for IPV management that can be used in all hospital settings.