MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125257514 · doi:10.64483/202522542

Preventing Workplace Violence in Healthcare: Strategies to Reduce Medical Disputes and Enhance Patient Safety-An Updated Review for Healthcare Security Workers

2025· article· W7125257514 on OpenAlexaff
Abeer Ali Ali Awaji, Fahad Abdullah Mohammad Alhanaya, Arwa Zaidan Alzaidan, Sumayyah Abdu Yahya Hadadi, Ismail Mohammed Abdullah Sahli, Hassan Yahya Ahmed Najmi, Amjad Abdulaziz Mohammed Aljallal, Ghalib Mohammed Abdu Arar, Abdullah Mohammed Ahmed Asiri

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Medicine and Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityHealth careGrievancePatient safetyComplaintCorporate governanceWorkplace violenceDispute resolutionAccreditationWorkforce

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Workplace violence against healthcare professionals (HCPs) undermines staff safety, erodes trust, and jeopardizes patient outcomes. In many settings, rising legal consciousness among patients and persistent quality deficits intersect with structural, financial, and educational weaknesses to intensify medical disputes and the risk of aggression. Aim: To synthesize an updated, practice-oriented framework for healthcare security workers and institutional leaders to prevent workplace violence, reduce medical disputes, and enhance patient safety through system, organizational, and frontline interventions. Methods: Narrative integration of recent analyses on root causes of violence and disputes, encompassing governance and accountability structures, purchasing and payment reforms, regulatory oversight, medical education quality assurance, workforce distribution, institutional safety systems, communication practices, and complaint and mediation pathways. Emphasis was placed on interactions between patient rights awareness, service quality, and trust. Results: Two proximate drivers—heightened awareness of patient rights and uneven service quality—amplify conflict when grievance mechanisms are weak. Structural factors include distorted competition dominated by public hospitals, fragmented governance with diffuse accountability, payer fragmentation with feeforservice and basic capitation that do not reward outcomes, and medical education expansion outpacing capacity. Media effects are indirect, primarily amplifying postincident norms. Financial toxicity and low institutional trust mediate escalation. Effective strategies include empowering hospital directors with authority tied to multidimensional performance accountability; integrating insurance purchasing and adopting blended payments (global budgets plus DRGs) with quality guardrails and public reporting; tightening medical school accreditation and rightsizing enrollment; deploying comprehensive safety and incidentlearning systems; strengthening patient communication, transparency, and apology practices; and institutionalizing rapid, fair complaint resolution and mediation, supported by targeted deescalation training for security and clinical teams. Conclusion: A layered, qualitycentered prevention model—aligning governance, purchasing, education, safety culture, and grievance systems—can reduce violence, resolve disputes earlier, and measurably improve patient and workforce safety.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.372 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of Medicine and Public HealthSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207