Aim To explore catalysts to, and circumstances surrounding, patient-to-worker violent incidents recorded by employees in a hospital system database. Background Violence by patients towards healthcare workers (Type II workplace violence) is a significant occupational hazard in hospitals worldwide. Studies to date have failed to investigate its root causes due to a lack of empirical research based on documented episodes of patient violence. Design Qualitative content analysis. Methods Content analysis was conducted on the total sample of 214 Type II incidents documented in 2011 by employees of an American hospital system with a centralized reporting system. Findings The majority of incidents were reported by nurses (39·8%), security staff (15·9%) and nurse assistants (14·4%). Three distinct themes were identified from the analysis: Patient Behaviour, Patient Care and Situational Events. Specific causes of violence related to Patient Behaviour were cognitive impairment and demanding to leave. Catalysts related to patient care were the use of needles, patient pain/discomfort and physical transfers of patients. Situational factors included the use/presence of restraints; transitions in the care process; intervening to protect patients and/or staff; and redirecting patients. Conclusions Identifying catalysts and situations involved in patient violence in hospitals informs administrators about potential targets for intervention. Hospital staff can be trained to recognize these specific risk factors for patient violence and can be educated in how to best mitigate or prevent the most common forms of violent behaviour. A social–ecological model can be adapted to the hospital setting as a framework for prevention of patient violence towards staff.

This study examined differences between self-report and actual documentation of workplace violence (WPV) incidents in a cohort of health care workers. The study was conducted in an American hospital system with a central electronic database for reporting WPV events. In 2013, employees (n = 2010) were surveyed by mail about their experience of WPV in the previous year. Survey responses were compared with actual events entered into the electronic system. Of questionnaire respondents who self-reported a violent event in the past year, 88% had not documented an incident in the electronic system. However, more than 45% had reported violence informally, for example, to their supervisors. The researchers found that if employees were injured or lost time from work, they were more likely to formally report a violent event. Understanding the magnitude of underreporting and characteristics of health care workers who are less likely to report may assist hospitals in determining where to focus violence education and prevention efforts.

No abstract

Aims and objectives To identify common catalysts of worker-to-worker violence and incivility in hospital settings. Background Worker-to-worker violence and incivility are prevalent forms of mistreatment in healthcare workplaces. These are forms of counterproductive work behaviour that can lead to negative outcomes for employees, patients and the organisation overall. Identifying the factors that lead to co-worker mistreatment is a critical first step in the development of interventions targeting these behaviours. Design Retrospective descriptive study. Methods Qualitative content analysis was conducted on the total sample (n = 141) of employee incident reports of worker-to-worker violence and incivility that were documented in 2011 at a large American hospital system. Results More than 50% of the incidents involved nurses, and the majority of incidents did not involve physical violence. Two primary themes emerged from the analysis: Work Behaviour and Work Organisation. Incidents in the Work Behaviour category were often sparked by unprofessional behaviour, disagreement over responsibilities for work tasks or methods of patient care, and dissatisfaction with a co-worker’s performance. Incidents in the Work Organisation category involved conflicts or aggression arising from failure to following protocol, patient assignments, limited resources and high workload. Conclusion Incidents of worker-to-worker violence and incivility stemmed from dissatisfaction with employee behaviour or from organisational practices or work constraints. These incident descriptions reflect worker dissatisfaction and frustration, resulting from poor communication and collaboration between employees, all of which threaten work productivity.

Objective To evaluate the effects of a randomized controlled intervention on the incidence of patient-to-worker (Type II) violence and related injury in hospitals. Methods Forty-one units across 7 hospitals were randomized into intervention (n=21) and control (n=20) groups. Intervention units received unit-level violence data to facilitate development of an action plan for violence prevention; no data were presented to control units. Main outcomes were rates of violent events and injuries across study groups over time. Results Six months post-intervention, incident rate ratios of violent events were significantly lower on intervention units compared to controls (IRR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.80). At 24 months, the risk for violence-related injury was lower on intervention units, compared to controls (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.83). Conclusion This data-driven, worksite-based intervention was effective in decreasing risks of patient-to-worker violence and related injury.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of antimicrobials to treat acute upper respiratory tract infections (URIs), which usually have a viral etiology, contributes to emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae and other human bacterial pathogens.

Background A key barrier to preventing workplace violence injury is the lack of methodology for prioritizing the allocation of limited prevention resources. The hazard risk matrix was used to categorize the probability and severity of violence in hospitals to enable prioritization of units for safety intervention. Methods Probability of violence was based on violence incidence rates; severity was based on lost time management claims for violence-related injuries. Cells of the hazard risk matrix were populated with hospital units categorized as low, medium, or high probability and severity. Hospital stakeholders reviewed the matrix after categorization to address the possible confounding of underreporting. Results Forty-one hospital units were categorized as medium or high on both severity and probability and were prioritized for forthcoming interventions. Probability and severity were highest in psychiatric care units. Conclusions This risk analysis tool may be useful for hospital administrators in prioritizing units for violence injury prevention efforts.

Although many studies link teamwork in health care settings to patient safety, evidence linking teamwork to hospital worker safety is lacking. This study addresses this gap by providing evidence linking teamwork perceptions in hospital workers to worker injuries, and further, finds a linkage between manager commitment to safety and teamwork. Organizational records of worker injuries and survey responses regarding management commitment to safety and teamwork from 446 hospital workers within 42 work units in a multi-site hospital system were examined. Results underscored the particular importance of teamwork on worker injuries as well as the importance of management commitment to safety as relating to teamwork. To improve worker safety, organizational leaders and unit managers should work to maintain environments wherein teamwork can thrive.