MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health Care Staff–Reported Workplace Violence in Patient Safety Event Reports

2025· article· en· W4416424395 on OpenAlexaff
Azade Tabaie, Sonita Bennett, Alberta Tran, Raj M. Ratwani, Mark Marino, Josanne Revoir, Laura M. Lee, Allan Fong

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchMedStar Health Research Institute
KeywordsWorkplace violencePatient safetyHealth careIntervention (counseling)Occupational safety and healthEvent (particle physics)Workplace safetyPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Workplace violence (WPV) against health care staff is an important problem in the US and worldwide. Objective: To develop a WPV classification approach and investigate the characteristics of the WPV incidents committed against health care staff documented in patient safety event (PSE) reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed 975 self-reported PSEs recorded by health care staff from March 1 to September 20, 2023, from a multihospital health care system in the mid-Atlantic region of the US. Main Outcomes and Measures: A subset of PSE reports that potentially pertained to WPV incidents were identified through structured information of the reports. When available, the following information was captured from each report: type of WPV incident and harm, reported perpetrators and those exposed to WPV, precipitating factors to the WPV incident, reporter's job function, whether security officers or law enforcement were contacted, and facility type. Results: A total of 15 426 PSEs were recorded. Of those, 975 reports (6.3%) were selected; for 300 (30.8%) of these reports, the free-text description of incidents was reviewed by 2 independent investigators, interrater reliability (IRR) was calculated, and the WPV classification was developed. Two investigators then independently classified the remaining 675 reports. A median IRR of 84% (IQR, 68%-99%) was achieved. Eight hundred thirty-one reports (85.2%) were related to WPV and 144 (14.8%) did not contain WPV narratives. The 831 WPV reports were further analyzed, and additional information about the WPV incidents were identified: patient- or visitor-on-staff violence (673 [76.7%]), verbal harm (331 [39.8%]), patients as perpetrators (581 [69.9%]), nurses exposed to WPV (277 [33.3%]), agitation (193 [23.2%]) and aggression (179 [21.5%]) as the leading precipitating factors, nurses reporting incidents (533 [64.1%]), contact of security officers (391 [47.1%]) and law enforcement (70 [8.4%]), and incidents occurring in hospitals (767 [92.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 15 426 PSE reports, 831 WPV incidents were identified, most involving patient- or visitor-on-staff verbal harm, with nurses frequently exposed. Agitation and aggression were the leading precipitating factors. The insights from PSE reports can inform the development of targeted WPV intervention and prevention plans, ultimately enhancing the safety of frontline staff.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207