Slipping through the cracks‐detection of sex trafficking in the adult emergency department: An integrative review

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionCurrent research estimates that over 24 million individuals experience human trafficking worldwide. There is a growing prevalence of sex trafficking in the United States. An estimated 87% of trafficked persons visit the emergency department during their captivity. Emergency departments across the United States use differing screening methods for sex trafficking. Current screening tools return a high rate of false negatives, and the appropriate use of tools or standardised lists remains unclear.AimsTo explore best practices for identifying sex trafficking among adults who visit emergency departments. We sought to answer the practice question: How does the implementation of a multifaceted screening model for sex trafficking, versus the use of a list of standardised screening questions, improve the detection of trafficked persons?MethodsWe conducted an integrative review of articles published after 2016 in PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases. PRISMA checklist and guidelines were used. Whittemore and Knafl's method was used to review the literature.ResultsA final selection of 11 articles were reviewed and appraised using the Johns Hopkins nursing evidence‐based practice model. The synthesis of evidence yielded four themes: (1) Provider and personnel education; (2) Protocol establishment; (3) Legal consultation; and (4) Multidisciplinary teamwork.ConclusionThrough this process, we learned the importance of using multifaceted screening tools for identifying persons who are experiencing sex trafficking. In addition to using multifaceted screening tools, detection is improved when all emergency department personnel receive training on sex trafficking. There is a recognised lack of education on sex trafficking recognition nationwide.Relevance to Clinical PracticeNotably, emergency department nurses play an essential role in sex trafficking identification due to their maximised interaction with patients and the increased perception of trust that patients have with nurses. Steps include the development of an education program to improve recognition.No Patient or Public ContributionThere was no patient or public involvement in the design or drafting of this integrative review.