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

Abstract

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