Article Text
PDF
Abstract
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.
- bites
- human
- presenting history
- diagnosis
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Competing interests: none declared
-
Ethical approval was not required for this study. It is well documented that some patients who have sustained human bites give alternative presenting histories to explain their injuries in an attempt to conceal the mechanism. This may be for a variety of reasons. Our Accident and Emergency Department has historically tried to address this problem with follow up questioning, allowing patients to clarify their presenting history. Occasionally patients retract their initial presenting history and give that of a human bite. These are questions that we would normally expect clinicians to ask, even before we conducted this audit. This was purely an audit study which did not change the way patients’ histories were taken, the way patients were questioned, or the way patients were managed.
Linked Articles
- Primary Survey