Summary

Differences in clinicoepidemiologic characteristics of chemical submission according to type of crime

August Supervía^1-3, María Castán⁴, Francina Fonseca^2,3,5, Alma Palomino^1,2, Jordi García-Quintana^2,5, Rafael de la Torre^2,3,5

Affiliation of the authors

¹Servicio de Urgències, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. ²Unitat Funcional de Toxicologia del Parc de Salut Mar, Baracelona, Spain. ³UPF-MELIS Department, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences. Grup de Treball de Toxicologia de la SoCMUE (SocMUETox). ⁴Instituto de Salud Mental, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. ⁵Neurosciences Research Program, Hospital del Mar Research Institut, Barcelona, Spain.

DOI

Download Article

Quote

Supervía A, Castán M, Fonseca F, Palomino A, García-Quintana J, de la Torre R. Differences in clinicoepidemiologic characteristics of chemical submission according to type of crime. Rev Esp Urg Emerg. 2024;3:231–5

Summary

OBJECTIVE. To identify possible differences between substances used for drug-facilitated crime (DFC) (sexual assault, theft) or chemical submission in the absence of evidence of a crime.
METHODS. Prospective observational study of cases of suspected DFC between 2017 and 2023. A spontaneous urine sample was collected from all patients for testing by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry for toxic substances.
RESULTS. We studied 87 patients suspected to be victims of DFC or under chemical submission. No crime could be ascertained in a majority of cases (52.9%); sexual assault was committed in 19.5% and theft in 27.6%. Most of the victims of sexual assault were women whereas the victims of theft were more often men (P < .001). Two or more substances were detected in 53% of the sexual assault cases, whereas in 75% of the cases of theft and 87% of cases with no evidence of a crime, no substance or a single substance was detected (P = .006). Alcohol was the substance most often identified, followed by tetrahydrocannabinol. The sexual assault cases less often involved a substance (in 29.4%) and more often involved vulnerability (in 47%). In contrast the substance vs vulnerability figures were 54.1% and 29.2%, respectively, for theft, and 6.52% and 2.2% when there was no evidence of a crime (P < .001, all comparisons).
CONCLUSIONS. In a majority of cases in which substances are detected, it is not possible to find evidence that a crime was committed. Most victims of sexual assault DFC are women. Alcohol is the substance most often detected. The likelihood of chemical submission was highest in cases of theft in this cohort.