Search

Understanding case identification practices, protocols, and training needs of medical examiners and coroners (MEC) may inform efforts to improve cause-of-death certification. We surveyed a U.S.-representative sample of MECs and described investigation practices and protocols used in certifying sudden unexpected infant deaths (SUID). We also identified MEC training and resource needs. Of the 377 respondents, use of the SUID Investigation Reporting Form or an equivalent was 89% for large, 87% for medium, and 52% for small jurisdictions. Routine completion of infant medical history, witness interviews, autopsy, photos or videos, and family social history for infant death investigations was ≥80%, but routine scene re-creation with a doll was 30% in small, 64% in medium, and 59% in large offices. Seventy percent of MECs reported infant death investigation training needs. Increased training and use of standardized practices may improve SUID cause-of-death certification, allowing us to better understand SUID.

In the United States of America, Medical Examiners and Coroners (ME/Cs) investigate approximately 20% of all deaths. Unexpected deaths, such as those occurring due to a deceased person under investigation for a highly infectious disease, are likely to fall under ME/C jurisdiction, thereby placing the ME/C and other morgue personnel at increased risk of contracting an occupationally acquired infection. This survey of U.S. ME/Cs' capabilities to address highly infectious decedents aimed to determine opportunities for improvement at ME/C facilities serving a state or metropolitan area. Data for this study was gathered via an electronic survey. Of the 177 electronic surveys that were distributed, the overall response rate was N = 108 (61%), with 99 of those 108 respondents completing all the questions within the survey. At least one ME/C responded from 47 of 50 states, and the District of Columbia. Select results were: less than half of respondents (44%) stated that their office had been involved in handling a suspected or confirmed highly infectious remains case and responses indicated medical examiners. Additionally, ME/C altered their personal protective equipment based on suspected versus confirmed highly infectious remains rather than taking an all-hazards approach. Standard operating procedures or guidelines should be updated to take an all-hazards approach, best-practices on handling highly infectious remains could be integrated into a standardized education, and evidence-based information on appropriate personal protective equipment selection could be incorporated into a widely disseminated learning module for addressing suspected or confirmed highly infectious remains, as those areas were revealed to be currently lacking.

This study aimed to provide information regarding key performance indicators (KPIs) for forensic pathology in Australia and New Zealand, focusing on the time to complete a Coronial post-mortem examination report. Data was obtained from the National Coronial Information System (NCIS). The mean and median time to complete a post-mortem examination report in 2015 was determined from a sample of 100 cases from each of the nine Coronial jurisdictions. Results of univariate and multivariable analysis of factors potentially influencing the completion time are presented. The multivariable analysis indicated the time to complete a post-mortem examination report was significantly dependent on if any internal examination had been performed, the Coronial jurisdiction and requesting toxicological analysis. The number of days for Coroners to close cases is also presented as well as the number of days for a post-mortem examination to be performed. A comparison between 2015 and 2010 was instigated. However, this data had to be constrained to eight of the Coronial jurisdictions. Within this dataset, the time to complete a post-mortem examination report when an internal examination had been performed was statistically significant greater in 2015. However, the time to complete reports for all Coronial post-mortem examinations in 2015 was not statistically significantly different to 2010. This could be attributed to a higher proportion of post-mortem examinations without internal examination ('external only') in 2015. The time to perform a post-mortem examination following the death being reported to a Coroner increased, but the time for Coroners to close a case decreased.