MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406297493 · doi:10.1186/s12873-024-01144-1

Understanding and measuring workplace violence in healthcare: a Canadian systematic framework to address a global healthcare phenomenon

2025· article· en· W4406297493 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christian Schulz, Brendan Lyver, Charlene Reynolds, Trevor Hanagan, Jennifer Haines, John P. Shannon, Laura Danielle Pozzobon, Yasemin Sarraf, Sam Sabbah, Sahand Ensafi, Natasha Bloomberg, Jaswanth Gorla, Brendan Singh, Lucas B. Chartier, Marnie Escaf, D. Elder, Marc Toppings, Brian Hodges, Rickinder Sethi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersDepartment of Psychiatry, University of TorontoUniversity Health Network
KeywordsHealth careMedicinePatient safetyWorkplace violenceNursingPandemicIntervention (counseling)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medical emergencyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Globally, healthcare institutions have seen a marked rise in workplace violence (WPV), especially since the Covid-19 pandemic began, affecting primarily acute care and emergency departments (EDs). At the University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada, WPV incidents in EDs jumped 169% from 0.43 to 1.15 events per 1000 visits (p < 0.0001). In response, UHN launched a comprehensive, systems-based quality improvement (QI) project to ameliorate WPV. This study details the development of the project's design and key takeaways, with a focus on presenting trauma-informed strategies for addressing WPV in healthcare through the lens of health systems innovation. METHODS: Our multi-intervention QI initiative was guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 3.0 framework. We utilized the SEIPS 101 tools to aid in crafting each QI intervention. RESULTS: Using the SEIPS 3.0 framework and SEIPS 101 tools, we gained a comprehensive understanding of organizational processes, patient experiences, and the needs of HCPs and patient-facing staff at UHN. This information allowed us to identify areas for improvement and develop a large-scale QI initiative comprising 12 distinct subprojects to address WPV at UHN. CONCLUSIONS: Our QI team successfully developed a comprehensive QI project tailored to our organization's needs. To support healthcare institutions in addressing WPV, we created a 12-step framework designed to assist in developing a systemic QI approach tailored to their unique requirements. This framework offers actionable strategies for addressing WPV in healthcare settings, derived from the successes and challenges encountered during our QI project. By applying a systems-based approach that incorporates trauma-informed strategies and fosters a culture of mutual respect, institutions can develop strategies to minimize WPV and promote a safer work environment for patients, families, staff, and HCPs.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.190
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1900.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0500.045
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0060.016
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Emergency MedicineSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207