Resource Deployment in Response to Trauma Patients.

Background Variance in the deployment of the trauma team to the emergency department (ED) can result in patient treatment delays and excess burden on ED personnel. Characteristics of trauma patients, including mechanism of injury, injury type, and age, have been associated with differences in trauma resource deployment. Therefore, this retrospective, single-site study aimed to examine the deployment patterns of trauma resources, the characteristics of the trauma patients associated with levels of trauma resource deployment, and the deployment impact on ED workforce utilization and non-trauma ED patients. Methodology This was an investigator-initiated, single-institution, retrospective cohort study of all patients designated as a trauma response and admitted to a community hospital's ED from July 01, 2019, through July 01, 2022. Results Resource deployment for trauma patients varied by mechanism of injury (p < 0.001), injury type (p < 0.001), and patient age groups (p < 0.001). Specifically, there was a lower average trauma activation for geriatric trauma patients with a fall as a mechanism of injury compared to all younger patient groups with any mechanism of injury (F(5) = 234.49, p < 0.001). In the subsample, there was an average of 3.35 ED registered nurses (RNs) allocated to each trauma patient. Additionally, the ED RNs were temporarily reallocated from an average of 4.09 non-trauma patients to respond to trauma patients, despite over a third of the trauma patients in the subsample being the trauma patients being discharged home from the ED. Conclusions Trauma activation responses need to be standardized with a specific plan for geriatric fall patients to ensure efficient use of trauma and ED personnel resources.

Measuring Emergency Department Staff Perceptions of Causes and Management of Violence.

BACKGROUND: Half of all reported violent incidents in health care settings occur in the emergency department (ED) placing all staff members at risk. However, research typically does not include all ED work groups or validated measures beyond nurses and physicians. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (a) validate an established instrument measuring perceptions of causes of violence and attitudes toward managing violence within an inclusive workforce sample; and (b) explore variation in perceptions, attitudes, and incidence of violence and safety to inform a violence prevention program. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated single-site cross-sectional survey design assessing the psychometric properties of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) within a convenience sample (n = 134). Construct validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis and reliability was evaluated by the Cronbach's α estimation. Descriptive, correlational, and inferential estimates explored differences in perceptions, attitudes, and incidence of violence and safety. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis indicated validity of the MAVAS with a seven-factor model. Its internal consistency was satisfactory overall (Cronbach's α= 0.87) and across all subscales (Cronbach's α values = 0.52-0.80). Significant variation in incidence of physical assault, perceptions of safety, and causes of violence was found between work groups. CONCLUSIONS: The MAVAS is a valid and reliable tool to measure ED staff members' perceptions of causes of violence and attitudes toward managing violence. In addition, it can inform training according to differences in work group learner needs.