Cargando…

Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice

BACKGROUND: Over two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and perpetrators, but healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not share information related to DVA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dheensa, Sandi, Feder, Gene
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9207756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35710255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057022
_version_ 1784729597773873152
author Dheensa, Sandi
Feder, Gene
author_facet Dheensa, Sandi
Feder, Gene
author_sort Dheensa, Sandi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Over two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and perpetrators, but healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not share information related to DVA across healthcare settings and with other agencies or services. AIM: We aimed to analyse and highlight the commonalities, inconsistencies, gaps and ambiguities in English guidance for HCPs around medical confidentiality, information sharing or DVA specifically. SETTING: The English National Health Service. DESIGN AND METHOD: We conducted a desk-based review, adopting the READ approach to document analysis. This approach is a method of qualitative health policy research and involves four steps for gathering, and extracting information from, documents. Its four steps are: (1) Ready your materials, (2) Extract data, (3) Analyse data and (4) Distill your findings. Documents were identified by searching websites of national bodies in England that guide and regulate clinical practice and by backwards citation-searching documents we identified initially. RESULTS: We found 13 documents that guide practice. The documents provided guidance on (1) sharing information without consent, (2) sharing with or for multiagency risk assessment conferences (MARACs), (3) sharing for formal safeguarding and (4) sharing within the health service. Key findings were that guidance documents for HCPs emphasise that sharing information without consent can happen in only exceptional circumstances; documents are inconsistent, contradictory and ambiguous; and none of the documents, except one safeguarding guide, mention how coercive control can influence patients’ free decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for HCPs on sharing information about DVA is numerous, inconsistent, ambiguous and lacking in detail, highlighting a need for coherent recommendations for cross-speciality clinical practice. Recommendations should reflect an understanding of the manifestations, dynamics and effects of DVA, particularly coercive control.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9207756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92077562022-06-29 Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice Dheensa, Sandi Feder, Gene BMJ Open Health Policy BACKGROUND: Over two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and perpetrators, but healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not share information related to DVA across healthcare settings and with other agencies or services. AIM: We aimed to analyse and highlight the commonalities, inconsistencies, gaps and ambiguities in English guidance for HCPs around medical confidentiality, information sharing or DVA specifically. SETTING: The English National Health Service. DESIGN AND METHOD: We conducted a desk-based review, adopting the READ approach to document analysis. This approach is a method of qualitative health policy research and involves four steps for gathering, and extracting information from, documents. Its four steps are: (1) Ready your materials, (2) Extract data, (3) Analyse data and (4) Distill your findings. Documents were identified by searching websites of national bodies in England that guide and regulate clinical practice and by backwards citation-searching documents we identified initially. RESULTS: We found 13 documents that guide practice. The documents provided guidance on (1) sharing information without consent, (2) sharing with or for multiagency risk assessment conferences (MARACs), (3) sharing for formal safeguarding and (4) sharing within the health service. Key findings were that guidance documents for HCPs emphasise that sharing information without consent can happen in only exceptional circumstances; documents are inconsistent, contradictory and ambiguous; and none of the documents, except one safeguarding guide, mention how coercive control can influence patients’ free decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for HCPs on sharing information about DVA is numerous, inconsistent, ambiguous and lacking in detail, highlighting a need for coherent recommendations for cross-speciality clinical practice. Recommendations should reflect an understanding of the manifestations, dynamics and effects of DVA, particularly coercive control. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9207756/ /pubmed/35710255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057022 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Policy
Dheensa, Sandi
Feder, Gene
Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice
title Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice
title_full Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice
title_fullStr Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice
title_full_unstemmed Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice
title_short Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice
title_sort sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of english guidance and recommendations for good practice
topic Health Policy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9207756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35710255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057022
work_keys_str_mv AT dheensasandi sharinginformationaboutdomesticviolenceandabuseinhealthcareananalysisofenglishguidanceandrecommendationsforgoodpractice
AT federgene sharinginformationaboutdomesticviolenceandabuseinhealthcareananalysisofenglishguidanceandrecommendationsforgoodpractice