Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
Impact of Abortion Bans on Emergency Care for Patients With Vaginal Bleeding: An Ethnographic Analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Alexander Andreia B, LaRoche Kathryn J, Cromer Risa, Edmonds Brownsyne Tucker, Freedman Lori
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Dobbs decision enabled widespread state abortion bans, creating legal ambiguity for clinicians managing reproductive emergencies in the ED. While impacts on obstetricians are documented, less is known about how these laws influence emergency medicine practice. We explored how ED clinicians navigate care for patients with vaginal bleeding under Indiana's restrictive abortion ban.
METHODS: We conducted a team-based ethnographic study at an urban academic ED and Level 1 Trauma Center in Indiana between August 2023 and October 2024. Data included six weeks of site-based observations and semi-structured interviews with 20 emergency clinicians. Interviews explored clinical decision-making, documentation practices, and perceptions of legal risk following implementation of the abortion ban. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using an iterative, consensus-based qualitative coding process informed by ethnographic methods.
RESULTS: Three interrelated themes shaped clinician decision-making: knowing, documentation, and reporting. Clinicians described altered approaches to history-taking, particularly around self-managed abortion, balancing medical relevance against concerns for patient stigma and legal harm. Documentation practices were characterized by uncertainty and fear, with many clinicians intentionally limiting chart detail to protect patients while simultaneously worrying about medico-legal vulnerability. Knowledge of state-mandated reporting requirements varied widely, contributing to anxiety, misinterpretation of the law, and defensive clinical behaviors. Across themes, clinicians reported persistent tension between ethical obligations to patient safety and autonomy and perceived pressure to ensure legal self-protection. Robust institutional support was identified as a critical mitigating factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Indiana's abortion ban has introduced legal uncertainty into emergency care for patients with vaginal bleeding, reshaping clinician behavior around information gathering, documentation, and reporting. These shifts risk delayed or defensive care, erosion of patient trust, and widening inequities in time-sensitive emergency settings. Clear institutional guidance, interdisciplinary collaboration, and legal support are essential to safeguard evidence-based emergency care and uphold ethical practice in restrictive reproductive policy environments.
METHODS: We conducted a team-based ethnographic study at an urban academic ED and Level 1 Trauma Center in Indiana between August 2023 and October 2024. Data included six weeks of site-based observations and semi-structured interviews with 20 emergency clinicians. Interviews explored clinical decision-making, documentation practices, and perceptions of legal risk following implementation of the abortion ban. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using an iterative, consensus-based qualitative coding process informed by ethnographic methods.
RESULTS: Three interrelated themes shaped clinician decision-making: knowing, documentation, and reporting. Clinicians described altered approaches to history-taking, particularly around self-managed abortion, balancing medical relevance against concerns for patient stigma and legal harm. Documentation practices were characterized by uncertainty and fear, with many clinicians intentionally limiting chart detail to protect patients while simultaneously worrying about medico-legal vulnerability. Knowledge of state-mandated reporting requirements varied widely, contributing to anxiety, misinterpretation of the law, and defensive clinical behaviors. Across themes, clinicians reported persistent tension between ethical obligations to patient safety and autonomy and perceived pressure to ensure legal self-protection. Robust institutional support was identified as a critical mitigating factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Indiana's abortion ban has introduced legal uncertainty into emergency care for patients with vaginal bleeding, reshaping clinician behavior around information gathering, documentation, and reporting. These shifts risk delayed or defensive care, erosion of patient trust, and widening inequities in time-sensitive emergency settings. Clear institutional guidance, interdisciplinary collaboration, and legal support are essential to safeguard evidence-based emergency care and uphold ethical practice in restrictive reproductive policy environments.