Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Anonymous (or confidential) forensic evidence collection (AFC; German:&#xa0;<i>Anonyme Spurensicherung</i> [ASS]) following sexual offenses plays a critical role in the initial care of affected individuals. Comprehensive execution of this procedure presents a significant challenge in the clinical routine care of gynecologists, as legal requirements, court-admissible documentation of injuries, and forensic evidence preservation often lead to uncertainty. The implementation of forensic evidence collection as a statutory health insurance benefit, following the Measles Protection Act (<i>Masernschutzgesetz</i>), has been effective in North Rhine-Westphalia since March 1, 2025, and is currently being formalized in contractual agreements. The objective of this study is to track the utilization of AFC, raise awareness of this topic, and identify common problems associated with its execution.</p> Materials and methods <p>Systematic compilation of annual case numbers for anonymous forensic evidence collection (AFC) was performed from June 2011 to December 2024 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne. This was followed by a statistical evaluation of the percentage increase and the annual mean values.</p> Results <p>A total of 177 cases were documented at the University Hospital Cologne. Between 2012 and 2024, the annual case numbers increased from eight to 25 cases. The average number of cases examined annually during the observation period was 13.15. This corresponds to an average annual increase of approximately 17%, totaling 215% over 11&#xa0;years, when considering 2012 as the first complete year for data analysis. Frequent issues encountered in clinical practice include improper storage (until transport to the Institute of Legal Medicine) and incorrect labeling of collected samples.</p> Conclusions <p>The observed increase in the number of alleged victims of sexual violence requiring examination supports the health policy assumption that structured and correct forensic evidence collection is becoming increasingly vital. Adequate funding for the examination and the storage of evidence carriers is mandatory for long-term quality assurance. This is the only way to ensure optimal support and care for presumed victims in these stressful situations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Anonymous forensic evidence collection (AFC) after sexual offenses: a challenge in gynecological care—data from 13 years and 7 months at a University Hospital

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月17日

查看全文
  • Clarissa Herpel,
  • Magdalena Bogus,
  • Peter Mallmann,
  • Sibylle Banaschak,
  • Sebastian Ludwig

摘要

Introduction

Anonymous (or confidential) forensic evidence collection (AFC; German: Anonyme Spurensicherung [ASS]) following sexual offenses plays a critical role in the initial care of affected individuals. Comprehensive execution of this procedure presents a significant challenge in the clinical routine care of gynecologists, as legal requirements, court-admissible documentation of injuries, and forensic evidence preservation often lead to uncertainty. The implementation of forensic evidence collection as a statutory health insurance benefit, following the Measles Protection Act (Masernschutzgesetz), has been effective in North Rhine-Westphalia since March 1, 2025, and is currently being formalized in contractual agreements. The objective of this study is to track the utilization of AFC, raise awareness of this topic, and identify common problems associated with its execution.

Materials and methods

Systematic compilation of annual case numbers for anonymous forensic evidence collection (AFC) was performed from June 2011 to December 2024 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne. This was followed by a statistical evaluation of the percentage increase and the annual mean values.

Results

A total of 177 cases were documented at the University Hospital Cologne. Between 2012 and 2024, the annual case numbers increased from eight to 25 cases. The average number of cases examined annually during the observation period was 13.15. This corresponds to an average annual increase of approximately 17%, totaling 215% over 11 years, when considering 2012 as the first complete year for data analysis. Frequent issues encountered in clinical practice include improper storage (until transport to the Institute of Legal Medicine) and incorrect labeling of collected samples.

Conclusions

The observed increase in the number of alleged victims of sexual violence requiring examination supports the health policy assumption that structured and correct forensic evidence collection is becoming increasingly vital. Adequate funding for the examination and the storage of evidence carriers is mandatory for long-term quality assurance. This is the only way to ensure optimal support and care for presumed victims in these stressful situations.