Emergency department (ED) screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) faces logistic difficulties and has uncertain efficacy. We surveyed 146 ED visitors and 108 ED care providers to compare their support for ED IPV screening in three hypothetical scenarios of varying IPV risk. Visitor support for screening was 5 times higher for the high-risk (86%) than for the low-risk (17%) scenario. Providers showed significantly more support for the need for ED IPV screening than visitors. Controlling for confounding by gender, race, experience with IPV, hospital, and marital status did not affect comparisons between groups. These responses indicate greater support for IPV screening in the ED for high-risk than for low-risk cases, particularly among visitors.

Affect

10.1177/0886260506286841

Cite

Citations (23)

Effectiveness of a Rural Emergency Department (ED)-Based Pain Contract on ED Visits Among ED Frequent Users

Journal of Emergency Medicine (2018)

Abdulaziz Alburaih Michael D. Witting

Medical record

10.1016/j.jemermed.2018.04.056

Cite

Citations (6)

Variability in Institutional Review Board Assessment of Minimal-risk Research

Academic Emergency Medicine (2002)

Jon Mark Hirshon S Krugman Michael D. Witting Jon P. Furuno M. Rhona Limcangco

To examine variability in responses from institutional review boards (IRBs) to submission of a proposed minimal-risk survey.Identical research proposals to obtain information concerning beliefs about the needs of victims of intimate partner violence via surveys were submitted for IRB approval to three institutions in the Baltimore metropolitan area. One institution is an academic center, one is an inner-city hospital affiliated with the academic center, and the third is a suburban community hospital. The study population consisted of emergency department health care providers and individuals in emergency department waiting areas.Inconsistencies emerged among the three IRBs in the review process itself, the need for participant consent, and the need for revision of the consent form and study protocol. One institution approved the proposal in 15 business days after expedited review. The second institution approved the proposal in 12 business days and waived the requirement for informed consent. The third institution approved the research in 77 business days after three revisions. Questions raised included: methodology for selecting participants; appropriateness of surveying individuals in emergency department waiting areas; a request for background literature to assure that the research questions had not already been answered; and concerns about study methodology and sample size justification.In this sample, there is considerable variability in IRB processes even for minimal-risk studies.

Institutional review board

Academic institution

Institution

Sample (material)

Trauma Center

10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01612.x

Cite

Citations (49)

The sensitivity of room-air pulse oximetry in the detection of hypercapnia

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine (2005)

Michael D. Witting Sam S. Hsu Carlos Andres Granja

Pulse Oximetry

Room air distribution

10.1016/j.ajem.2004.12.006

Cite

Citations (11)