No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To describe and compare characteristics and outcomes of patient presentations brought in by police (BIBP) with those not BIBP (NBIBP) to one Australian ED. Methods: A retrospective observational study. All patient presentations to a tertiary hospital ED made during the period 8 October 2012 to 7 April 2013 were included. Routinely collected ED information data and medical record review data were used. ED care delivery for people BIBP from the watch house (WH) or other location was compared. Univariate comparison and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the different characteristics and ED outcomes between BIBP and NBIBP groups. Results: A total of 35 127 ED presentations occurred within the 6 month period; 392 (1.1%) were BIBP. Compared with those NBIBP, those BIBP were diagnosed with 'psychiatric' and 'toxicology-related' illnesses in higher proportions. Overlap in health conditions (primarily for physical health reasons) between those BIBP and NBIBP existed. Presentations BIBP from the WH reflected 'physical health emergencies' whereas presentations BIBP from other locations reflected 'behavioural emergencies'. Compared to those NBIBP, those BIBP had a longer wait to be seen (by about 5 min), longer ED length of stay (LOS) if not admitted (by about 20 min) but shorter ED LOS if admitted (by about 59 min). When adjusted for sex, age group and diagnosis, ED LOS (if admitted) and admission rate were statistically significant. For those BIBP, mental health related orders and alcohol breath tests were common. Conclusions: Patients BIBP were different to those NBIBP. Despite comprising a small proportion of overall ED attendances, they are a group where mental health and drug and alcohol issues are over-represented. Differences in ED care delivery for those BIBP highlights potential opportunities for pre-hospital healthcare interventions.

The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the available literature on genital injury in order to facilitate an understanding of its significance in relation to sexual offence trials. Wide variation exists in research objectives, study populations and methodology, hindering interpretation considerably. The most valuable research in this field identifies the range of normal genital findings and those associated with consensual sexual intercourse, to enable interpretation of genital findings in sexual assault victims. However, there are, unfortunately, few studies of this nature. Difficulties arise when examining doctors are not experienced in the genital examination of those other than sexual assault victims, limiting their ability to draw conclusions about genital injury if it is detected. If the methods of genital examination employed are not the same as those used to examine a wide range of non-sexual assault victims, comparison and thus valuable interpretation is further limited. This review of the literature finds that the most appropriate genital examinations and indeed the most legally valuable as far as interpretation is concerned, are done macroscopically by doctors with considerable experience in the examination of normal, diseased and traumatized genitalia, and a sound knowledge of the principles of injury interpretation. A deficiency exists in the literature in relation to macroscopic genital examination findings in consensually sexually active women who have been examined by forensically trained doctors. This deficiency must be addressed before the medicolegal significance of genital injury relating to sexual assault can be accurately interpreted, and before any decision is made to incorporate colposcopy or staining techniques into the routine assessment of sexual assault victims.

No abstract