The Ethics of Discharge Planning After Violent Injury

Victims of violence (VoV) are at disproportionate risk for future violence, making consideration of patient safety by Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians and Trauma Surgeons (TS) essential when discharge planning (DP) for VoV. Practice patterns and ethical perspectives in DP for VoV, and their respective scenario- and specialty-specific variations, are unknown.

We surveyed 118 EM and 37 TS physicians at a level 1 trauma center. Three clinical scenarios were presented (intimate partner violence, elder abuse, gun violence), each followed by four questions assessing practices and ethical dilemmas in DP. Responses were compared using Chi-Square testing.

Response rate was 51.6%. EM physicians more frequently supported patient autonomy to proceed with a potentially unsafe discharge plan after an episode of Intimate Partner Violence (P = .013) and believed that admission could facilitate change in the victim's social situation after an episode of Elder Abuse (P = .026). TS physicians were more likely to offer social admission, providing additional time to navigate safe discharge planning (P = .003), less likely to see social admission as an inappropriate use of limited resources (P = .030) and less likely to support patient autonomy to proceed with a potentially unsafe discharge (P = .003) after gun-related violence.

There appears to exist scenario- and specialty-specific variability in the practice patterns and ethical perspectives of EM and TS physicians when discharge planning for victims of violence. These findings highlight the need for further evaluation of specific factors underlying variability by situation and specialty, and their implications for patient-centered outcomes.