Promoting holistic approaches to management of violence in the ED—a response to Ramacciati (2023)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We were very pleased to receive a response to our paper (Timmins et al., 2023) that highlighted current issues in relation to the nursing management of emergency department (ED) violence (Ramacciati, 2023). Moreover that the position paper achieved its primary aim in terms of “excellently achieved its goal of stimulating reflection on the causal factors of violence against nurses in emergency departments and discussing possible solutions and strategies for largely unresolved issues” (Ramacciati, 2023). This was most heartening for us. Understandably, this author echoes the growing concern among the nursing profession that there is a potential increase in this phenomenon, with growing frustration about ways to tackle the problems. They also, like us, agree that the management approach needs to be holistic taking account of the multiplicity of personal and contextual factors that contribute to its occurrence. Indeed, we drew upon the important work of Ramacciati et al. (2018) within our paper, noting that from an extensive study of Italian nurses (n = 15,000), these authors were able to determine a conceptual framework for understanding ED violence which gave equal weighting to the importance of environmental and organisational factors alongside factors within the nurse and patient considerations. The potential for the nurse to trigger violence, either by presence or action, was an interesting consideration to emerge from this conceptual work, and one that must be given careful consideration in management and policy approaches for the future. Certainly, as we pointed out in our paper, there are key contributing patient factors such as intoxication and cognitive/mental health issues, however the contribution of the environment, including other key issues such as overcrowding and queuing needs greater consideration in approaches to the management of ED violence. In fact, ED nurses, when they are asked about triggers for ED violence state overwhelmingly that the environment is the major contributory factor (Angland et al., 2014). Ramacciati (2023) points out that the prevention and management of ED violence has been high on policy makers agendas for more than two decades, and yet the health services appear stifled in their success with operationalising these and reducing and addressing the issues. There are many reasons for this, including under-reporting, acceptance of ED violence as part of the job and nurses only seeking redress when real harm has been done (Timmins et al., 2023). However, Ramacciati (2023) reminds us that it is time to evoke considered action and begin to examine and address this phenomenon in a way that comprehensively considers the multifactorial contributors within the ED dynamic and one that fully supports both nurses and clients in their care. Indeed, the work of these authors (Ramacciati, 2023) is sure to make a significant contribution to this, first by their important conceptual outline that can inform our understanding of the phenomenon, but also through other more recent work including the development of a user-friendly system (a smartphone app) for reporting ED violence (Ramacciati et al., 2021).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,044 | 0,063 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,030 | 0,056 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».