Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38221965›Full record

ArticleForensic sciences research2023

National assessment of emergency staff level of practice in the management of forensic evidence.

Saad B Albishri, Fahed A Albednah, Nawaf S Alenazi, Nahaa E Alsubaie, Osama S Elserafy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic sciences research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Saad B AlbishriCollege of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fahed A AlbednahCollege of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Nawaf S AlenaziCollege of Medicine, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Nahaa E AlsubaieDepartment of Mathematics, AlKhurmah University College, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Osama S ElserafyDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Clinical Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergency room is the most likely location where victims of violent crime would be encountered by the healthcare system, as the emergency staff is the first to evaluate the victim or culprit, exposing them to a range of forensic evidence. Forensic evidence can help exclude, identify, and prosecute a suspect and is classified as informational or physical evidence. Emergency staff must be proficient and knowledgeable in gathering, preserving, and documenting forensic evidence in their practice. To our knowledge, this is the first study that assesses the emergency staff's level of practice in managing forensic evidence. The aims of this study are to assess the level of practice of emergency staff in managing forensic evidence and observe an association between emergency experience and the level of practice in managing forensic evidence, study a connection between forensic education/training and the level of practice in the management of forensic evidence. This observational cross-sectional analytical study in Saudi Arabia was conducted from January 2022 to December 2022. Participants completed a self-administered online survey. Measuring the level of practice was implemented through a researcher-designed questionnaire based on a paper that provided guidelines for forensic evidence collection in the emergency department. Most emergency healthcare workers had a good level of practice in managing forensic evidence (64.7%). Those with excellent practice scored the lowest in documentation, whereas participants in the poor practice category scored the lowest in the trace evidence and clothes domains. Emergency workers who encountered less number of forensic cases per month, i.e. less than two or three to five cases, were found to be more likely to have poor management of forensic evidence. Emergency personnel with no prior education or training are more likely to engage in poor practice in forensic evidence collection. Furthermore, those who had acquired forensic education/training had higher percentages of excellent forensic practice (56.52%) compared to poor practice (7.14%). Those who claimed that their institution had issued guidelines were more likely to have excellent practice (75.36%), whilst those who did not receive guidelines were more likely to have poor forensic evidence management (85.71%). More research is required involving local hospitals and utilizing consistently validated methods in evaluating forensic evidence collection. Key points: A national assessment of emergency staff level of practice in the management of forensic evidence was performed.Most emergency staff had a good level of practice in the management of forensic evidence.More training and education are needed for emergency staff in the field of forensics.National evidence-based guidelines for managing forensic evidence in the emergency setting should be established.

Indexed as

forensic educationforensic emergency medicineforensic evidence collectionforensic nursingforensic trainingguidelines

Identifiers

PMID38221965
PMCPMC10785582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.