Evaluation of the knowledge and attitudes of emergency service physicians regarding custody entry and discharge examinations

Forensic case management and the proper writing of forensic reports are important responsibilities for physicians. Emergency room physicians are the first to encounter acute cases and the physicians who encounter them most frequently. The literature does not reveal many problems with forensic reports written in the emergency room and the way emergency room physicians approach forensic cases. This study aimed to assess the knowledge and approaches of physicians working in emergency departments in Elazığ province regarding detention entry and exit reports, which constitute a significant portion of forensic reports. For this purpose, an online survey was sent to 121 physicians between December 2024 and April 2025, and their responses were evaluated. Of the participants, 31 (25.6%) were assistant physicians, 23 (19%) were specialist physicians, and 67 (55.4%) were general practitioners. 71 (58.7%) of the participants were male and 50 (41.3%) were female. Of the physicians participating in the study, 34 (28.1%) were in their first year of practice, 48 (39.7%) had been in the profession for 1 to 5 years, and 39 (32.2%) had been working for more than 5 years. 59 physicians (48.8%) were working at their first place of duty, while 62 physicians (51.2%) had previously worked in different institutions or hospitals. Of the physicians who responded to our survey, 68 (56.2%) work in state or integrated hospitals, while 53 (43.8%) work in tertiary care (university hospital, city hospital, training and research hospital). An average of 8.42 ± 2.15 correct answers were given to the 13 statements regarding detention entrance and exit examinations. Twenty-six (21.5%) of the participants responded "false," which is the expected response, to the 8th statement. Thirty-four (28.1%) of the participants responded "false," which is the expected response, to the 19th statement. These two statements received the least correct responses. The scores obtained in our research were categorized. Those with a total score of 11, 12, and 13 were categorized as "good," those with 8, 9, and 10 as "medium," and those with 7 and below as "insufficient." It was determined that 22 (18.2%) of the participants had a "good," 60 (49.6%) "medium," and 39 (32.2%) "insufficient" level of awareness. The average scores were also compared with demographic data. The average score for male participants was 8.8 and 7.9 for female participants. The average score for participants who received Istanbul Protocol training was 9, and for those who did not, it was 8.1. The percentage of physicians working in the tertiary care sector is 8. Particular attention was also paid to whether they had received Istanbul Protocol training. Statistically significantly more physicians, compared to specialists, assistants, and general practitioners (p=0.009), physicians with more than 5 years of experience (p=0.000), physicians who had previously worked in different institutions (p=0.005), compared to physicians working in state hospitals and integrated hospitals (p=0.021). As a result, we believe that physicians working in emergency departments have deficiencies in the field of detention entry and exit examinations and need more training. The number of physicians who have received Istanbul Protocol training is low, and awareness can be increased through training. Keywords: forensic reports, İstanbul Protocol, custodial examination, emergency.