4.2 Review

Review article: Workplace violence in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta analysis

期刊

EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 265-275

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.12761

关键词

alcoholic intoxication; emergency medicine; incidence; violence exposure; workplace violence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patient or visitor perpetrated workplace violence (WPV) has been reported to be a common occurrence within the ED. No universal definition of violence or recording of such events exists. In addition ED staff are often reluctant to report violent incidents. The true incidence of WPV is therefore unclear. This systematic review aimed to quantify WPV in EDs. The association of WPV to drug and alcohol exposure was explored. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Library were searched from their commencement to 10 March 2016. MeSH terms and text words for ED, violence and aggression were combined. A meta-analysis was conducted on the primary outcome variable-proportion of violent patients among total ED presentations. A secondary meta-analysis used studies reporting on proportion of drug and alcohol affected patients occurring within the violent population. The search yielded a total of 8720 records. A total of 7235 were unique and underwent abstract screening. A total of 22 studies were deemed relevant according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Retrospective study design predominated, analysing mainly security records and incident reports. The rates of violence from individual studies ranged from 1 incident to 172 incidents per 10000 presentations. The pooled incidence suggests there are 36 violent patients for every 10000 presentations to the ED (95% confidence interval 0.0030-0.0043). WPV in the ED was commonly reported. There is wide heterogeneity across the study methodology, definitions and rates. More standardised recording and reporting may inform preventive measures and highlight effective management strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据