• Louise Anne McNutt, Bonnie E Carlson, Isabel M Rose, and David A Robinson.
• Department of Epidemiology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12144, USA. lam08@health.state.ny.us
• Am J Prev Med. 2002 Feb 1; 22 (2): 84-91.

BackgroundFew studies of intimate partner violence (IPV) interventions have been conducted in primary care settings. Based on recommendations, we implemented a multifaceted IPV intervention that included a sticker placed in medical charts listing screening questions, routine IPV screening by nursing staff, clinician follow-up for women screening positive, and referral to on-site services.MethodsA prospective cohort study compared multiple measures collected at the intervention site and a center providing usual care. Measures included self-reported IPV, documented IPV screening and IPV experiences, and quantity of IPV materials taken from the centers.ResultsOf 746 charts reviewed in a random chart review conducted at the intervention site, 36.6% were tagged for IPV screening, and of those tagged, 86.1% had documentation of screening. Approximately 5% (11 of 235) of women screened positive for IPV; about half had documented clinician follow-up and referral to on-site services. Comparison of survey responses and medical record reviews (intervention site) indicated that the screening protocol primarily identified severely abused women (sensitivity 80%, specificity 98%), but rarely identified women experiencing low to moderate levels of abuse. IPV brochures were taken from the intervention site at a rate of 51 per 1000 visits versus 29 per 1000 visits taken from the control site.ConclusionsUtilizing screening as the only gateway to on-site services limited access for many IPV victims. The removal of IPV brochures from examination rooms suggests that providing contact information for self-referral to on-site services may improve access.

27 keywords...

hide…