Hospital-based intervention for intimate partner violence victims: a forensic nursing model

Nurses' role in caring for women experiencing intimate partner violence in the sri lankan context

Intimate partner violence has short- and long-term physical and mental health consequences. As the largest healthcare workforce globally, nurses are well positioned to care for abused women. However, their role in this regard has not been researched in some countries. This paper is based on a qualitative study that explored how Sri Lankan nurses perceive their role in caring for women who have experienced partner violence. Interviews with 30 nurses who worked in diverse clinical and geographical settings in Sri Lanka revealed that nurses' role involved: identifying abuse, taking care of patients' physical needs, attending to their safety, providing support and advice, and making referrals. Barriers to providing care included lack of knowledge; heavy workload; language barriers; threats to personal safety; nurses' status within the healthcare hierarchy; and lack of communication and collaboration between various stakeholder groups within the healthcare system. Nurses also identified a lack of appropriate services and support within hospitals and in the community. The findings reveal an urgent need for the healthcare system to respond to nurses' educational and training needs and help them function autonomously within multidisciplinary teams when caring for abused women. The findings also point to a need to address institutional barriers including the lack of appropriate services for abused women.

[Intimate partner violence is not identified as a health problem by health care workers]

OBJECTIVE

To determine attitudes, opinions and knowledge of domestic violence among medical and nursing staff.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive study of prevalence using an ad hoc questionnaire. A random sample of 321 health professionals were asked about their opinions and knowledge of domestic violence and its relationship with health.

RESULTS

A total of 287 health professions completed the questionnaire. Most (87.1%) considered that intimate partner violence was an important problem, but not a health issue. Sixty percent of the health professionals believed that they could play an important role in detecting patients in this situation. Knowledge about the management of this problem was low. Nursing professionals were more sensitive to this issue and better prepared than medical staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare personnel are sensitive to the problem of intimate partner violence but do not consider this issue to be a health problem. Education about this phenomenon and its management is required.

Intimate partner violence: implications for critical care nursing

IPV presents a serious health risk to many women. Emergency and critical care nurses are in a prime position for identification of and intervention with these women. Careful assessment and recognition of symptoms and conditions associated with IPV helps nurses to identify victims and potential victims. Building a trusting and supportive environment, where women feel comfortable disclosing abuse, precedes effective intervention. Nursing practice can incorporate the myriad resources and successful programs to provide victims with quality care. Before discharge from the critical care unit or ED, nurses can help women to identify their risk and plan for safety. Effective nursing care in IPV combines the traditional critical care nursing skills synergistically with provision for the biopsychosocial needs of patients.

Hospital-based violence intervention programs work

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based violence prevention programs have emerged at trauma centers nationwide; however, none has been thoroughly evaluated for effectiveness. Our Violence Intervention Program (VIP) conducted a prospective randomized control study to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention for repeat victims of violence.

METHOD

Patients admitted between 1999 and 2001 for treatment of injuries inflicted by a violent act were identified. Repeat victims of violence on parole/probation were invited to join the study. Participants were given a history-gathering questionnaire and randomized into two groups. Cases (intervention [n = 56]) received intensive psychosocial follow-up services, family or group therapy, and assisted with substance abuse treatment. Controls (nonintervention [n = 44]) received standard medical treatment and follow-through in accordance with standard parole or probation procedures.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the number of arrests in the two groups. The control group was three times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime, two times more likely to be convicted of any crime, and four times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime. The projected time of incarceration is significantly longer for the control group. Repeat violent criminal activity was significantly more evident in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Significant differences exist between the VIP intervention and nonintervention groups in terms of the quantity and severity of criminal activity.