SHORT REPORT

Prospective audit of 106 consecutive human bite injuries: the importance of history taking

C G Wallace¹ and C E Robertson²

¹ Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, West Sussex, UK
² Department of Accident and Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
MrC G Wallace
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 3DX, UK; c.g.wallace{at}gmail.com

Objectives: Some patients attempt to conceal human bites with factitious mechanisms of injury. Follow up questioning allows patients to modify their histories. This practice was prospectively audited.

Methods: Patients with cutaneous wounds who did not present with a history of human bite were asked a follow up question. Those who then gave a history of human bite were noted.

Results: Certain groups of patients with human bites were significantly more likely to provide a factitious history and/or delay presentation.

Conclusion: Follow up questioning dramatically increased the case-detection rate, prompting specific management.

Keywords: bites; human; presenting history; diagnosis

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Primary Survey

Geoff Hughes
Emerg. Med. J. 2005 22: 837. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Marcovitch, H. (2005). What's new this month in BMJ Journals. BMJ 331: 1363-1363 [Full Text]