IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1993833369-371_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The underreporting of cocaine-related trauma: Drug Abuse Warning Network reports vs hospital toxicology tests

Author

Listed:
  • Brookoff, D.
  • Campbell, E.A.
  • Shaw, L.M.

Abstract

Objective. The purpose of this study was to assess whether cocaine- related trauma is underreported to the US Federal Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). Methods. We compared DAWN reports filed by an urban emergency department with the department's toxicology results for patients treated for major trauma. DAWN regulations in effect during the study period required the reporting of all patients treated for injury who used drugs or who tested positive for drugs of abuse. Results. Of 520 patients treated for major trauma, 217 (42%) were tested for a variety of drugs. Of these, 82 (38%) tested positive for cocaine. Of the 102 patients injured in motor vehicle accidents, 20 (20%) tested positive for cocaine. Of the 59 patients injured in motor vehicle accidents who were under age 40, 18 (30%) tested positive for cocaine. Of 100 victims of violent assault, 57 tested positive for cocaine. During the time period studied, DAWN recorded 48 hospital visits associated with cocaine, none involving trauma or injury. Conclusions. Cocaine-related trauma was unreported to DAWN despite the hospital's compliance with the system's guidelines. The pattern of DAWN reports from other institutions suggests that underreporting of cocaine-related injury is widespread.

Suggested Citation

  • Brookoff, D. & Campbell, E.A. & Shaw, L.M., 1993. "The underreporting of cocaine-related trauma: Drug Abuse Warning Network reports vs hospital toxicology tests," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 83(3), pages 369-371.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1993:83:3:369-371_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1993:83:3:369-371_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.