MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958968976 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7622724

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

2025· other· en· W6958968976 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careWorkplace violencePatient safetyPandemicHealthcare systemFocus groupQuality (philosophy)Quality management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 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)0.183
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.204
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1830.204
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0450.040
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.153 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207