"If Not Me, Then Who?": Exploring the Challenges Experienced by Front-Line Clinicians Screening for, and Communicating About, Domestic Violence in the Emergency Department.

Screening for domestic violence in healthcare settings increases detection. The emergency department (ED) is one setting where victims frequently attend with injuries and illnesses sustained from violence. However, screening rates remain suboptimal. There is little research about how formal screening occurs, or how less structured interactions are negotiated within the ED context. This article explores this important, but non-mandatory procedure within the context of clinician-patient interactions in Australia. A descriptive qualitative study was undertaken with 21 clinicians across seven EDs in Australia. Thematic analysis was undertaken by two researchers. Results indicate a lack of confidence around DV screening, and tensions in clinicians initiating conversation while managing their own emotional stressors. No participants expressed knowledge of formal screening processes in their workplaces. Successful DV screening programs must provide clinicians with the tools to minimize perceived discomfort in initiating and sustaining conversations while accepting patient preferences regarding disclosure.

Improving domestic violence screening practices in the emergency department: an Australian perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Domestic violence (DV) is a major cause of morbidity worldwide. The ED is a location recommended for opportunistic screening. However, screening within EDs remains irregular. OBJECTIVE: To examine intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to routine screening in Australian EDs, while describing actions taken after identification of DV. METHODS: Emergency clinicians at nine public hospitals participated in an anonymous online survey. Factor analysis was performed to identify principal components around attitudes and beliefs towards screening. RESULTS: In total, 496 emergency clinicians participated. Universal screening was uncommon; less than 2% of respondents reported screening all adults or all women. Although willing, nearly half (45%) reported not knowing how to screen. High patient load and no single rooms were 'very or severely limiting' for 88% of respondents, respectively, while 24/7 social work and interpreter services, and online/written DV protocols were top enablers. Factor analysis identified four distinct intrinsic belief components: (1) screening is not futile and could be done in ED, (2) screening will not cause harm, (3) there is a duty to screen and (4) I am willing to screen. CONCLUSION: This study describes a culture of Queensland ED clinicians that believe DV screening in ED is important and interventions are effective. Most ED clinicians are willing to screen. In this setting, availability of social work and interpreter services are important mitigating resources. Clinician education focusing on duty to screen, coupled with a built-in screening tool, and e-links to a local management protocol may improve the uptake of screening and subsequently increase detection.