Journal of clinical nursing · 2017
Classificatory multiplicity: intimate partner violence diagnosis in emergency department consultations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olive Philippa
Аннотация
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the naming, or classification, of physical assaults by a partner as 'intimate partner violence' during emergency department consultations.
BACKGROUND: Research continues to evidence instances when intimate partner physical violence is 'missed' or unacknowledged during emergency department consultations.
METHODS: Theoretically, this research was approached through complexity theory and the sociology of diagnosis. Research design was an applied, descriptive and explanatory, multiple-method approach that combined qualitative semistructured interviews with service-users (n = 8) and emergency department practitioners (n = 9), and qualitative and quantitative document analysis of emergency department health records (n = 28).
RESULTS: This study found that multiple classifications of intimate partner violence were mobilised during emergency department consultations and that these different versions of intimate partner violence held different diagnostic categories, processes and consequences.
CONCLUSION: The construction of different versions of intimate partner violence in emergency department consultations could explain variance in people's experiences and outcomes of consultations. The research found that the classificatory threshold for 'intimate partner violence' was too high. Strengthening systems of diagnosis (identification and intervention) so that all incidents of partner violence are named as 'intimate partner violence' would reduce the incidence of missed cases and afford earlier specialist intervention to reduce violence and limit its harms.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This research found that identification of and response to intimate partner violence, even in contexts of severe physical violence, was contingent. By lowering the classificatory threshold so that all incidents of partner violence are named as 'intimate partner violence', practitioners could make a significant contribution to reducing missed intimate partner violence during consultations and improving health outcomes for this population. This research has relevance for practitioners in any setting where service-user report of intimate partner violence is possible.
BACKGROUND: Research continues to evidence instances when intimate partner physical violence is 'missed' or unacknowledged during emergency department consultations.
METHODS: Theoretically, this research was approached through complexity theory and the sociology of diagnosis. Research design was an applied, descriptive and explanatory, multiple-method approach that combined qualitative semistructured interviews with service-users (n = 8) and emergency department practitioners (n = 9), and qualitative and quantitative document analysis of emergency department health records (n = 28).
RESULTS: This study found that multiple classifications of intimate partner violence were mobilised during emergency department consultations and that these different versions of intimate partner violence held different diagnostic categories, processes and consequences.
CONCLUSION: The construction of different versions of intimate partner violence in emergency department consultations could explain variance in people's experiences and outcomes of consultations. The research found that the classificatory threshold for 'intimate partner violence' was too high. Strengthening systems of diagnosis (identification and intervention) so that all incidents of partner violence are named as 'intimate partner violence' would reduce the incidence of missed cases and afford earlier specialist intervention to reduce violence and limit its harms.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This research found that identification of and response to intimate partner violence, even in contexts of severe physical violence, was contingent. By lowering the classificatory threshold so that all incidents of partner violence are named as 'intimate partner violence', practitioners could make a significant contribution to reducing missed intimate partner violence during consultations and improving health outcomes for this population. This research has relevance for practitioners in any setting where service-user report of intimate partner violence is possible.