Nurses and Workplace Violence: Nurses' Experiences of Verbal and Physical Abuse at Work
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes nurses' experiences of violence and abuse in the workplace and the ways in which those experiences influence their abilities to care for patients. The original purpose of the research from which these findings derive was to explore nurses' work with abused women. The qualitative study utilizing a Social Constructivism approach was conducted in two countries: Canada and the United Kingdom. Forty-nine nurses from four clinical areas were interviewed, both in focus groups and individually, about factors influencing their care of abused women. In the course of the original study, the degree of verbal abuse and physical violence that nurses routinely encounter in their work became apparent. It also became clear that abuse against nurses is an important issue that has a significant impact on nurses' abilities to offer effective care. Findings indicated that nurses experience significant threat, frequently in the context of their work, at the hands of patients and their relatives; that verbal abuse is an almost daily occurrence; and that support from other healthcare professionals or from administration in addressing the issue, while improving somewhat, is inadequate. This work has implications not only for nurses' health and safety but also, in the broader sense, for the profession's ability to attract and retain nurses within the healthcare system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it