The Mistakes and Defects In The Judicial Reports Prepared At Emergency Services

In this study we have aimed at determining mistakes and defects made while preparing judicial reports which will contribute to the judicial process properly.

In this study, which is supposed to have definitive quality, we have taken 351judicial reports on judicial facts of victims who applied to Emergency Service of Ondokuz Mayýs University between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005 as samples and examining them we have evaluated the mistakes and defects.

We have found out that, of the judicial reports, in the 6.0% age, in the 71.8% examination time, in the 30.5% traumatic lesion or not, in the 58.7% the state of being conscious, in the 2.6% life-threatening risks or not, had no registers. The name of the physician who prepared the report is not given in the 8.0% of the reports. The most important defect is that none of the reports had the name, surname and signature of the person who had taken the prepared report.

We have come to a conclusion that, after graduating, it is necessary for the physician who has the responsibility for both treating the patients and writing a judicial report, to attend in service training programs and that, there, they have to be warned about the resposibilities for the judicial cases.

Acil Serviste Düzenlenen Adli Raporlardaki Hata ve Eksiklikler

AMAÇ: Bu çalýþmada, yargý sürecinin saðlýklý þekilde iþlemesine katký saðlayacak adli raporlarýn düzenlenmesinde yapýlan hata ve eksikliklerin saptanmasý amaçlanmýþtýr.

GEREÇ-YÖNTEM: Tanýmlayýcý nitelikteki bu çalýþmada; Ondokuz Mayýs Üniversitesi Acil Servisine 01.01.2005 - 31.12.2005 tarihleri arasýnda baþvuran adli olgulara ait 351 adli rapor incelenerek hata ve eksiklikler deðerlendirilmiþtir.

BULGULAR: Adli raporlarýn %6,0’sýnda yaþ, %71,8’inde muayene saati, %30,5’inde travmatik lezyon bulunup-bulunmadýðý, %58,7’sinde þuur durumu, %2,6’sýnda yaþamsal tehlike varlýðý bilgisinin kayýtlý olmadýðý saptanmýþtýr. Raporu düzenleyen hekimin adý ve soyadý raporlarýn %8,0’inde bulunmamaktadýr. En büyük eksiklik ise düzenlenen raporu teslim alan kiþinin adý, soyadý ve imzasýnýn raporlarýn hiç birinde olmamasýdýr.

SONUÇ: Kiþilerin adli yargýlama sürecinde hak kaybýna uðramamalarý için, hastayý tedavi etmek kadar, adli rapor yazma sorumluluðu da bulunan hekimlerin lisans eðitimleri sonrasýnda meslek içi eðitimlerine devam edilmesi, bu eðitimlerde adli olgulardaki sorumluluklarýnýn vurgulanmasý gerekmektedir.