Risk factors for violence in an emergency department: Nurses' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Work-related violence remains a significant problem in healthcare settings, including EDs. Violence risk assessment tools have been developed to improve risk mitigation in this setting; however, incorporation of these tools into standard hospital processes remains scarce. This research aimed to explore nurses' perspectives on the Bröset Violence Checklist used in routine violence risk assessment and their recommendations for additional items. METHODS: Thirty nursing staff who used the Bröset Violence Checklist (BVC) as standard practice for 5 years participated in two focus groups where 23 violence risk factors were presented. Using multiple methods, participants were asked to select and elaborate from a pre-determined list what they considered most useful in violence risk assessment in respect to descriptors and terminology. RESULTS: Quantitative data showed most risk factors presented to the group were considered to be predictive of violence. Ten were regarded as associated with risk, and overt behaviours received the highest votes. The terms 'shouting and demanding' was preferred over 'boisterous', and 'cognitive impairment' over 'confusion'. Patient clinical characteristics and staff perceptions of harm, inability to observe subtle behaviour, imposed restrictions and interventions and environmental conditions and impact were also important considerations. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that violence risk assessment include: history of violence, cognitive impairment, psychotic symptoms, drug and alcohol influence, shouting and demanding, verbal abuse/hostility, impulsivity, agitation, irritability and imposed restrictions and interventions. These violence risk factors fit within the four categories of historical, clinical, behavioural and situational.

Emergency department staff experiences of the Bröset Violence Checklist.

AIM: Work-related violence is a significant problem in healthcare settings and emergency departments are one of the highest at-risk locations. There have been significant challenges in identifying successful risk-mitigation strategies to reduce the incidence and impact of work-related violence in this setting. This research explores the perspectives of clinical staff who routinely use violence risk assessment to provide recommendations for improvements. DESIGN: This qualitative research used interviews of staff who routinely use of the Bröset Violence Checklist in an emergency department. The study was conducted in April 2022. METHOD: Interview transcripts were subjected to Thematic Analysis to explore participants' clinical experiences and judgements about the utility of the Bröset Violence Checklist. RESULTS: Eleven staff participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants described themes about the benefits of routine violence risk assessment and the influence of the subjective opinion of the scorer with respect to the emergency department patient cohort. Four categories of violence risk factors were identified: historical, clinical, behavioural and situational. Situational risks were considered important for tailoring the tool for context-specificity. Limitations of the BVC were identified, with recommendations for context-specific indicators. CONCLUSION: Routine violence risk assessment using the Bröset Violence Checklist was deemed useful for emergency departments, however, it has limitations. IMPACT: This study's findings offer potential solutions to reduce violence affecting front-line workers and practical processes that organizations can apply to increase staff safety. IMPLICATIONS: The findings produced recommendations for future research and development to enhance utility of the Bröset Violence Checklist. REPORTING METHOD: EQUATOR guidelines were adhered to and COREQ was used. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was involved in this study.

Development, implementation and evaluation of a process to recognise and reduce aggression and violence in an Australian emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: In 2018, we developed and implemented a novel approach to recognition and response to occupational violence and aggression (OVA). It included routine use of the Brøset Violence Checklist for all ED patients integrated with a score-based notification and response framework. The present study evaluated the impact of the new process on staff knowledge, perceptions and confidence regarding OVA in ED and the rate of security events related to OVA. METHODS: The present study was conducted in a metropolitan hospital ED in Australia. Evaluation was by online before and after survey of nursing staff, point prevalence study of risk classification and comparison of OVA-related events involving security in the year before implementation and the year after the programme was embedded. RESULTS: One percent of patients were assessed as high violence risk with a further 4% at moderate risk. The introduction of the Brøset Violence Checklist increased documentation of violence risk assessment. It also improved staff perception of organisational support and awareness of behaviours associated with the risk of violence. There was a statistically significant reduction in unplanned OVA-related security responses (relative risk 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.89). There was also a statistically significant shift to proactive management through early detection and intervention (relative risk 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.85-2.66). CONCLUSION: A process including routine OVA risk assessment and a notification and response framework reduced unplanned security events due to OVA and increased staff confidence in recognition and management of OVA. This approach may be suitable for use more broadly in ED.