Use of HIV PEPSE and Hepatitis B vaccine following the introduction of a SARC

• Published in: Journal of forensic and legal medicine Vol. 18; no. 8; pp. 375 - 379
• Main Authors: Bennett, Judy, BSc, MBBS, MRCGP, DRCOG, DFFP, Johnson, Sandie, RN, BSc (Hons)
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-11-2011; Churchill Livingstone Inc., Medical Publishers
• Subjects: Ambulatory Care Facilities; Assaults; Clinical Audit; Forensic medicine; Forms and Records Control; Guideline Adherence; Hepatitis; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B - prevention & control; Hepatitis B vaccine; Hepatitis B Vaccines; HIV; HIV Infections - prevention & control; HIV Infections - transmission; HIV post exposure prophylaxis (HIV PEP); HIV post exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure (HIV PEPSE); Human immunodeficiency virus; Humans; Pathology; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data; Risk Assessment; Sex crimes; Sex Offenses; Sexual assault; Sexual assault referral Centre (SARC); Sexual offence examiner (SOE); United Kingdom; Vaccines; HIV post exposure prophylaxis (HIV PEP); Hepatitis B vaccine; Sexual assault referral Centre (SARC); HIV post exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure (HIV PEPSE); Sexual assault; Sexual offence examiner (SOE)
• ISSN: 1752-928X; 1878-7487
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.07.009

Abstract Adherence to local guidelines on the use of HIV post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and hepatitis B vaccine following sexual assault was evaluated by means of audit. Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs) were asked to complete an audit form after conducting sexual offence examinations at Gloucester Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC). Only one HIV PEP pack was prescribed during the six and a half month audit period. Examination of the SARC records of the allegations made by complainants did not reveal any high-risk cases involving a failure to offer HIV post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure (PEPSE). The majority of the examinations performed at the SARC were carried out by trained sexual offence examiners (SOEs). The audit indicates that these SOEs were considering the appropriate use of HIV PEPSE and hepatitis B vaccine when they performed examinations. Some examinations were performed by general forensic medical examiners who completed the audit forms infrequently. It was not possible to determine whether these examiners were considering the appropriate use of HIV PEPSE and hepatitis treatments.