School of Nursing
Faculty of Health Science
Why do nurses electronically chart violence alerts on,
or 'flag', emergency patients?
April Stanley-Banks
December 2011
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introductory Paragraph ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Context of the Study ....................................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 5 1.4 Statement of the Research Question ............................................................. 7 1.5 Statement of the Hypothesis .......................................................................... 8
1.6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 9
1.7 Assumptions .................................................................................................. 12
1.8 Definitions of Terms and Cases ................................................................... 12 1.9 Summary of the Thesis ................................................................................. 16 1.10 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 20 2.1 Introduction to the Literature Review ........................................................ 20
2.2 Environmental Factors Related to Emergency Department Violence ..... 23 2.3 Media Portrayal of Community Violence................................................... 26 2.4 The Healthcare Approach to Emergency Department Violence .............. 27 2.5 Impact of Workplace Violence on Emergency Nurses .............................. 31
2.6 Implications for Emergency Nurses ............................................................ 33
2.7 Summary ....................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ................................................... 36 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Research Paradigm for this Study .............................................................. 37 3.3 Research Design and Methodology ............................................................. 38 3.4 Research Tool Development ........................................................................ 39
3.5 Study Setting/Research Site ......................................................................... 41 3.6 Study Population ........................................................................................... 43
3.7 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................ 43 3.8 Recruitment Strategies ................................................................................. 45 3.9 Ethics Approval ............................................................................................ 46
3.10 Approval from the Ethics Committee ......................................................... 47 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ............................................................................................... 57
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 57
4.2 Study Sample ................................................................................................. 57 4.3 Section A1 Emergency Nurse Participant Demographics ........................ 59 4.4 Section A2 ‘Flagging’ ................................................................................... 69 4.5 Section B: Patient-related Factors .............................................................. 70
4.6 Section C: Nurse Attitudes, Practice and Knowledge of ‘Flagging’ in the
ED 73 4.7 Section D Nurse Perception of Flagging in the ED .................................... 76 4.8 Analysis of Focus Group Interviews ........................................................... 79
4.9 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 90 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 92
5.1 Restatement of the Problem ......................................................................... 92 5.2 Summary Description of Procedures .......................................................... 94
5.3 Major Findings and Their Significance to Clinical Practice .................... 95
5.4 Study Limitations/Strengths ...................................................................... 102 5.5 Recommendations for Further Investigation ........................................... 103 5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 104
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 123 Appendix 1: Aggression and Violence Incident Report Form (IF 18) page 1 .. 124
Appendix 1: Aggression and Violence Incident Report Form (IF 18) page 2 .. 125 Appendix 1: Aggression and Violence Incident Report Form (IF 18) page 3 .. 126 Appendix 1: Aggression and Violence Incident Report Form (IF 18) page 4 .. 127 Appendix 2: Research Questionnaire .................................................................. 128 Appendix 3: Focus Group Interview Questions .................................................. 125
Appendix 4: ED Violence Incidents Data ............................................................ 126
Appendix 4: ED Violence Incidents Data ............................................................ 127
Appendix 4: ED Violence Incidents Data ............................................................ 128 Appendix 5: Newspaper Articles .......................................................................... 129 Appendix 5: Newspaper Articles .......................................................................... 130 Appendix 5: Newspaper Articles .......................................................................... 131 Appendix 5: Newspaper Articles .......................................................................... 132
Appendix 6: Advertisement for Survey Participant Recruitment .................... 133 Appendix 7: Willingness to Participate in Focus Group Interview Form ........ 134 Appendix 8: Participant Information Sheet ........................................................ 135 Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 1 .............................................................. 137
Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 2 .............................................................. 138
Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 3 .............................................................. 139
Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 4 .............................................................. 140 Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 5 .............................................................. 141
Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 6 .............................................................. 142 Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 7 .............................................................. 143 Appendix 9: Research Proposal, page 8 .............................................................. 144
Appendix 10: University of Adelaide Ethics Committee Approval .................. 145
Appendix 11: CNAHS Ethics Approval/Hospital Setting Willingness to Support
.................................................................................................................................. 146
Appendix 11: CNAHS Ethics Approval/Hospital Setting Willingness to Support
.................................................................................................................................. 147
Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 1 ........................................................... 148 Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 2 ........................................................... 149 Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 3 ........................................................... 150
Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 4 ........................................................... 151 Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 5 ........................................................... 152 Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 6 ........................................................... 153 Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 7 ........................................................... 154 Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 8 ........................................................... 155
Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire, page 9 ........................................................... 156 Appendix 13: Australian Nursing Federation Policy, page 1 ............................ 157 Appendix 13: Australian Nursing Federation Policy, page 2 ............................ 158
Appendix 13: Australian Nursing Federation Policy, page 3 ............................ 159 Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, Personal Threat Action Card 1......................... 160 Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, Personal Threat Action Card 2......................... 161 Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, Personal Threat Action Card 3......................... 162
Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, Personal Threat Action Card 4......................... 163
Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, Personal Threat Action Card 5......................... 164 Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, page 1 of 3 ........................................................... 165 Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, page 2 of 3 ........................................................... 166 Appendix 13: Hospital Policy, page 3 of 3 ........................................................... 167 Appendix 14: Participant Response to Item B1.2 ............................................... 168
Appendix 15: Focus Group In-House Nurse-to-Nurse Discussions .................. 169
Appendix 15: Focus Group In-House Nurse-to-Nurse Discussions (continued)
.................................................................................................................................. 170
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Emergency Nurse Flagging Behaviour and Patient Related Behaviours ....... 72 Figure 2 Flow Chart of Major Themes stemming from the experience of Workplace
Violence .................................................................................................................. 82
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Response Rate by Emergency Nurse Classification .......................................... 58
Table 2 Demographic Summary of 85 Emergency Nurses including Age, Gender and
Career Experience ................................................................................................... 60 Table 3 Emergency nurse Flagging Behaviour (including Recency and Frequency of
Flagging) in relation to Demographics ................................................................... 62 Table 4 Emergency Nurse Flagging Behaviour (including recency and frequency of
Flagging) in Relation to Experience ....................................................................... 63
Table 5 Flagging Behaviour/Participant Demographics including Shifts Worked and
Qualifications .......................................................................................................... 68 Table 6 Emergency Nurse Reasons for Not Flagging .................................................... 69 Table 7 Patient-related Factors Ever, Always and Never Flagged ................................. 70 Table 8 Emergency Nurse Attitudes to Flagging ........................................................... 74 Table 9 Emergency Nurse Practices of Flagging ........................................................... 75
Table 10 Emergency Nurse Knowledge of Flagging ..................................................... 76 Table 11 Emergency Nurse Perception of Flagging ....................................................... 78
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Numerous people have assisted with the completion of this thesis through the provision
of support, motivation and assistance.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr
Timothy Schultz and Ms Tiffany Conroy for their valuable guidance, encouragement,
advice and inspiration.
I also thank the Acting Nursing Director for the Emergency Department; Andrew
McGill for supporting the research proposal and the ongoing research project.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the nurses who took the
time to participate and impart their knowledge and experience in the data collection
period of this research.
I would also to thank Professor Judy Magarey for her assistance in the introduction of
statistical analysis and Associate Professor Anne Wilson for her support throughout the
research project phase.
I deeply thank my husband and family members for their support and encouragement.
ABSTRACT
Background
The emergency department workplace violence is an increasing universal experience for
nurses inducing negative consequences such as feelings of vulnerability amongst nurses.
Little is known about this problem due to varying definitions of workplace violence,
variable data collection and under-reporting of violence incidents by nurses. Some
reasons given for under-reporting are; what nurses ascribe to acts of violence, individual
desensitisation to violence, and nurses considering it to be a part of the job. The
Emergency Department Information System is a readily available electronic reporting
system used frequently by ED nurses to highlight or „flag‟, patients who exhibit
potential for violence. This tracking system assists the nurse to identify and manage
potential violence by equipping the nurse with prior knowledge regarding such patients.
Aims
The aims of this study are to better understand why emergency nurses „flag‟ patients in
the ED and what factors trigger emergency nurses to „flag‟.
Methodology
In this mixed methods study, quantitative, (self-reported questionnaires), and
qualitative, (semi-structured focus group interviews), data collection techniques were
used.
Findings
Findings from this study indicated that nurses „flag‟ to protect themselves and their
colleagues from being targets of violent attack. Nurses who didn‟t „flag‟ were unaware
of the „flagging‟ process. Most nurses were unaware of a hospital policy for the process
of „flagging‟. Although „flagging‟ is a means by which nurses alert themselves to
identified cues for potential violence, „flagging‟ did not allay fears or feelings of
vulnerability amongst nurses.
Conclusion
Despite the use of the „flagging‟ process, „flagging‟ was not an established means of
prevention or a solution to violence. „Flagging‟ was considered as a means of improving
safety in the ED and therefore used by nurses, but it was merely a warning of presence
of violence in the ED. Since „flagging‟ had no impact on levels of nurse vulnerability,
more research needs to be done in order to assist to increase rates of emergency nurse
safety and retention and best patient outcome.
DEDICATION
I wish to dedicate this work to my sons Bill and Tom, and to my son-in-law Gav and to
my husband‟s son Trev whose experiences as young men inspired me.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introductory Paragraph
Despite a growing global unity for a covenant covering citizens‟ rights to occupational
safety, (Patterson, Leadbetter & Miller 2005), literature identifies emergency
departments as having escalated risk for incidents of workplace violence (Catlette 2005;
Erickson & Williams-Evans 2000; Ferns 2005a; Gerberich et al 2005; Lyneham 2000 &
McPhaul & Lipscomb 2004). Causes of workplace violence are depicted by
international research as burgeoning overcrowding, (due to increasing populations),
overwhelming shortages in healthcare resources and staff, (creating heavier workloads),
and spiralling numbers and seriousness of cases associated with substance abuse,
psychiatric disorders and interpersonal violence (Camerino et al 2008; Chapman &
Styles 2006; Crilly, Chaboyer & Creedy 2004 & Di Martino 2003). Emergency nurses,
who practice in the front line of patient care, and are exposed to first hand experiences
of workplace violence on a daily basis, are known to under-report these incidents and
suffer negative experiences such as increased feelings of personal vulnerability at work
and psychological and social dysfunction (Camerino et al 2008; Glaister & Kesling
2002; Hislop & Melby 2003; Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007 & Secker et al 2004).
Barriers to reporting include nurse perceptions of managerial and hospital
2
administration abandonment in these matters (Cooper et al 2011; Jacobson 2007; Jones
& Lyneham 2000; King et al 2006 & McKoy & Smith 2001). As well as under-
reporting, a scarcity of standardized measurement and reporting mechanisms for
violence in healthcare settings exists (Duxbury 2003; Ferns & Chojnacka 2005; Ferns
2006; Gacki-Smith et al 2009; Kennedy 2005 & Wilkes et al 2010). As a result, two
issues are of main interest: nurse reporting concerning the incidence of workplace
violence and impact of workplace violence on nursing performance. The findings of an
exploratory case study by Mayhew and Chappell in 2003, (which incorporated the
International Labour Office, the International Council of Nurses, the World Health
Organization and Public Services International), on the experience of occupational
violence of health care workers in Australia, are consistent with international research.
Major findings reveal that violence experienced by Australian health care workers is
complex and risk factors undetermined. Findings reveal the following points of
significance;
perpetrators of occupational violence have particular characteristics
assaults are predominantly instigated by patients suffering from mental
health conditions and are drug/alcohol-affected
patient-initiated violence is relatively common
perpetrators are disproportionately male
reporting is unreliable.
It is unknown whether incidents of unaddressed, antisocial or hostile behaviour toward
nurses from patients induces an element of marginal care in return (Benson et al 2003;
Di Martino 2003; Erickson & Williams-Evans 2000; Holmes 2006; Luck, Jackson &
Usher 2007 & Winstanley & Wittington 2004). It is also uncertain if nurses perceive
3
these patient behaviours as triggers for marginal care, to what degree nurses justify
marginal care in terms of self-defence, and how nurses may recommend the decision for
a culture of marginal care and communicate this among themselves as a means of mob
protection (Alexander et al 2004; Keely 2002; McPhaul & Lipscomb 2004; Roche,
Diers & Catling-Paull 2010). This chapter will describe the context, purpose, research
questions and significance of this thesis. Assumptions, definitions of terms and a
summary of the thesis are also presented.
1.2 Context of the Study
A male adolescent gang member presented to the emergency department with serious
injuries sustained in physical assault. He had been beaten around the head and chest by
multiple perpetrators using metal rods as weapons. This patient‟s background involved
a number of family, social and environmental conditions which he blamed for inhibiting
his personal development. These conditions were likely to have resulted in his poor
integration as a valuable citizen into society. Not only had this marginalization
increased this young man‟s propensity for engagement with criminal violence, but it
fuelled disparagement towards him from nursing staff while in the emergency
department for treatment of his injuries. His delinquent criminal behaviour had been
documented in his case notes during his previous presentations to this hospital facility.
As well as this, his associated past expressions of verbal aggression and physical
violence toward nursing staff had been recorded by nurses using an electronic system
for placing violence alerts on such individuals. The moment this young male arrived at
the emergency department for treatment, was triaged by the triage nurse, and had his
4
details linked by the receptionists to his admission via HASS, (Hospital Admission
Software Service), the violence alert, already in place, was immediately activated and
became visible to all nursing staff. The patient however, had no knowledge of this
insight gained by nurses. Following a brief initial medical assessment of injuries and
primary survey by emergency department staff, nursing interventions continued which
included the monitoring of his haemodynamic status and attempts to reduce his
perceived pain levels while waiting for blood and x-ray test results. Throughout his stay
in the emergency department the patient regularly expressed increased feelings of
ostracism from emergency department nurses and their care delivery. As his complaints
became louder, they were addressed less. He began to yell at the nursing staff in
retaliation and threatened their safety. Security staff were promptly called by nursing
staff to the patient‟s area to assist with prevention of harm to himself and others. The
interaction by the two security guards led to the patient removing himself from the
emergency department in an eruption of violent disarray despite the need for treatment
of his serious injuries. His self-discharge from the hospital facility, prior to complete
medical and surgical assessment and intervention, subsequently placed this patient at
risk of a reduced chance of survival. His self-discharge was clinically noted as „left
before treatment complete‟. Since the number of male, adolescent violence-related
presentations to the emergency department, (where the researcher is employed), is
perceived by nursing staff to be increasingly prevalent and the health care response to
this presenting population has been less than successful in its treatment outcomes, (since
the majority of these clients leave the department before their injuries are appropriately
assessed and/or treated), the existence of a relationship between the factors „violent
patients‟, „nurse behaviour‟ and „care delivery‟ was suspected by the researcher. This
observation led to the formulation of a research topic which endeavoured to examine
5
emergency nurse perspectives on presentations to emergency departments involving
violent patients and the subsequent behaviour in emergency nursing practice and patient
outcome. The following questions became of main interest;
Does patient association with violence intimidate nursing staff and lead to
compromised access to legitimately entitled health resources?
Do emergency nurses, who are often placed in dangerously threatening
situations by violent patients, use alerts or „flags‟ as indicators for self-
protection during nursing intervention?
Does the impact of frequent exposure to violent patients cause emergency
nurses to change their reporting behaviours?
Do emergency nurses place alerts on, or „flag‟, these patients as a means to
reduce fear of attack and/or risk of becoming targets of violence?
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The research topic initially endeavoured to cover aspects of emergency nurse
perspectives of emergency department presentations involving adolescent male victims
and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. The researcher was concerned for the health
care response and outcome of injuries sustained during these acts of violence for this
population as well as the influence nurse exposure to acts of violence may have on
nurses and their nursing care delivery. In order to capture an in depth insight on this
phenomenon, the researcher originally planned to investigate as many state-wide
emergency departments as possible ranging from inner city to metropolitan and
6
rural/remote areas. However, on reflection and given the time frame for completion of
the dissertation, it was not only decided that the geographical area should be reduced,
but the research topic should be considerably condensed from its early objectives. Not
only was it doubtful whether an appropriate tool existed for the elicitation of the
required information but the development of such a tool would require testing before
distribution among several state-wide and possibly interstate emergency departments.
Hence the topic was condensed solely to the designing and use of a suitable tool for data
collection regarding emergency nurses who place alerts on, (or „flag‟), emergency
patients according to their own judgment of what they considered worthy of reporting
and only one hospital facility was surveyed using this tool rather than several. This
would allow for future investigation of the topic by the researcher for the elaboration of
initial findings, and modification of the research tool, if necessary, to gain data from
other state-wide and interstate emergency departments. Since triggers for „flagging‟
were under scrutiny, items such as nurse-related factors and patient-related factors for
„flagging‟, frequency and recency of „flagging‟, and nurse attitude, practice, knowledge
and perception of this practice became constructs in the proposed survey. These items
related to issues observed concerning workplace violence, nurse vulnerability and
patient care. In addition to the use of the research tool, opportunity for nurse interview
was considered to allow for elucidation of deeper meanings which nurses may ascribe to
„flagging‟. Matters relating to whether nurses use „flagging‟ as a means of protection or
retaliation against attacks of violence and/or aggression and whether nurses felt that
„flagging‟ was the only means of reporting, which emergency nurses find effective,
were to be addressed in interview questions. These matters then led to the possibility of
interview questions based on violence and aggression and reporting systems with in the
emergency department and their effectiveness. Consideration was given to the
7
frequency of Code Blacks, (internal security response to threat and workplace safety),
initiated by emergency nurses as well as calls for Security staff and Police involvement.
Lastly, interview questions concerning the aftermath of violence were intended to allow
for nurses to articulate what they felt about the effects of day-to-day exposure to
workplace aggression and violence, and its influence(s) on their psychological and
physical health and health care performance. The purpose of this study was to better
understand why emergency nurses „flag‟ patients. The study specifically investigated;
Patient-related factors that impact on the „flagging‟ behavior of nurses
Nurse-related factors that impact on the „flagging‟ behavior of nurses
Attitude, practice, knowledge and perception of emergency nurses related to
„flagging‟ patients in the emergency department.
The benefits of the study included the opportunity to obtain information concerning the
phenomenon of nurse „flagging‟ and describe what exists with respect to the variables
or conditions involved in this situation in order to promote or confirm the need for
research for this chosen topic. Also, the provision of evidence on which to base further
experimental study to investigate possible causal relationships was envisioned.
1.4 Statement of the Research Question
The statement for the research question became; „Factors exist influencing emergency
nurses to electronically chart violence alerts on emergency patients.‟ The following
research question was formulated; „Why do nurses electronically chart violence alerts
on, (or „flag‟), emergency patients?‟
8
1.5 Statement of the Hypothesis
According to Schneider (2003, p251), „An hypothesis is an assumptive statement about
a relationship between two or more variables that suggests an answer to the research
question‟. Both the literature review and observations made in the emergency
department involving nurse exposure to workplace violence, and nurse reporting of
violence incidence, led to the following statements which supported the hypothesis;
1. A relationship exists between nurse-related factors and the „flagging‟ behavior of
nurses. Nurse-related factors under investigation were: demographics, attitudes,
practices, knowledge, perception, frequency and recency of flagging.
2. A relationship exists between patient-related factors and „flagging‟ behaviors of
nurses. Patient-related factors under investigation were: threat to harm,
aggressive statements or threats, intimidation, clenched fists, resisting health
care, prolonged or intense glaring at nurse, name calling, yelling, increase in
volume (speech), irritability, walking back and forth to the nurses‟ area, walking
around confined areas such as waiting room or bed space, sharp or caustic retorts,
demeaning inflection, belligerence, demanding attention, humiliating remarks.
The statement of hypothesis therefore became; “Emergency nurse exposure to
workplace violence is related to feelings of vulnerability and nurse „flagging‟ of
emergency patients who exhibit or have potential for violence”.
A mixed methods approach for this research was decided upon which included a
questionnaire and focus group interviews. This would allow the researcher to probe for
a relationship between variables within a natural environment. Both quantitative and
qualitative data were to be collected from self-reported, structured questionnaires and
9
semi-structured focus group interviews. To ensure that effects measured were attributed
to the independent variables, (nurse-related factors, patient-related factors, nurse
practice, attitude, knowledge and perception); questionnaire items were based on a
violence tool developed by Wilkes et al (2010). This tool was developed using the
qualitative Delphi technique, (revealing predicted cues used by nurses to report
violence). Meanings ascribed to violence by nurses were to be gained from a detailed
intensive study by Luck, Jackson & Usher (2007). Internal consistency and
reproducibility, (reliability), of items addressing the phenomenon were to be ensured by
basing the data collection instruments used on these previously designed tools and
research methods. To enhance validity, the questionnaire was piloted amongst the
proposed participant population – emergency department nurses.
1.6 Significance of the Study
An extensive literature review of articles from seven countries, (United States of
America, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Turkey, China and Australia), has
indicated that emergency department workplace violence is an increasing experience for
nurses. The majority of authors cited conclude that violence in emergency departments
is continuing to escalate reaching endemic levels and inducing negative consequences
such as feelings of vulnerability and insecurity amongst nurses as well as decreased
morale and subsequent burnout and resignation (Canbaz et al 2008; Erickson &
Williams-Evans 2000; Ferns 2005b; Hegney et al 2006; Hislop & Melby 2003; Jones &
Lyneham 2000; Luck Jackson & Usher 2007; Pane 1991; Perrone 1999; Rose 1997 &
Wilkes et al 2010). In fact, 72% of nurses do not feel safe from assault in their
10
workplace (International Council of Nurses 2009), and 90% experienced incidents of
physical and verbal attacks in one year in Australia alone (Jackson, Clare & Mannix
2002). All studies concede that unsafe work environments are unacceptable but despite
zero tolerance to violence being implemented in many organizations, ongoing
examination of this phenomenon is required. Relatively little is known about this
problem due to varying definitions of workplace violence, variable data collection due
to measurement of different criteria, and under-reporting of violence incidents by nurses
(Ferns 2006; Hegney et al 2006; Lyneham 2000; Perrone 1999). As a result, little is
known about some aspects concerning increasing incidents of nurse exposure to
personal violent attack and its aftermath and reasons why nurses choose to report or not
report these incidents. Reasons for under reporting revolve around what nurses ascribe
to individual acts of violence, individual desensitization to violence in the workplace,
nurses considering violence to be a part of the job, presence of mitigating and/or
contributing factors, fear of retaliation from management/superiors and lack of support
from hospital administrators (Crabb et al 2002; Howard & Gillboy 2009 & Hegney et al
2006).
The Central Northern Adelaide Health Service Prevention and Management of
Aggression Policy defines violence at work as „…any incident where a person is
abused, threatened or assaulted in situations relating to their work‟ (CNAHS Policy
Statement 2008). The policy makes provision for the reporting of incidents of violence
experienced by nurses by the use of the Report Form for Aggression and Violence. (See
Appendix 1) A total of 92 incidents were reported within a large Northern Metropolitan
Hospital by nurses using this form for the period July 2009 to June 2010 (Internal
Emergency Response Statistics 2010 & Occupational Health and Safety Risk
Management Reports 2010). These reports included 45 reports of physical abuse and 35
11
reports of verbal aggression. For this same period a total of 886 Code Blacks, (Internal
security response to threat and workplace safety), were reported hospital wide involving
unmanageable serious threat to safety caused by patients. Furthermore, there were no
incident report forms used by nurses to report violence incidents for the month of June
2010 while 98 Code Blacks were instigated for the same period.
The EDIS, (Emergency Department Information System), is a readily available
electronic reporting system which emergency department nurses frequently use to
highlight patients in the emergency department who commit violent acts or exhibit
potential for violent behaviour. This electronic patient tracking system is intended to
assist nurses to identify and manage potential violence by equipping the nurse with
historic knowledge regarding such patients and thereby assisting to prevent assaults on
staff. Although no formal policy or training exists for the use of this „flagging‟ system
and no criteria exists for the basis of placing alerts on patients, (better known as
„flagging‟), „flagging‟ is perceived as a regular occurrence which nurses rely on heavily
for personal safety. However, despite this prevention method, little evaluation has been
conducted on its outcomes or on the assessment methods and motivations of nurses to
„flag‟. . This study endeavoured to better understand what triggers exist which
emergency nurses use to „flag‟ patients. Given that nursing stems from a bygone era
evolving from a basic desire to assist those in pain and suffering, (Donahue 1996), the
researcher is challenged to discover the attitudes of nurses who „flag‟ patients and the
factors that influence those attitudes. Patient-related and nurse-related factors were
systematically measured through the use of a structured questionnaire to attempt to
produce tangible analysis of the phenomenon discussed. Focus group interviews were
also held to elicit any possible underlying social prejudices which may be held by
nurses and their origins.
12
1.7 Assumptions
Assumptions in this study were:
Emergency nurses are frequently faced with or exposed to violence
incidence while at work.
Emergency nurses regularly use „flagging‟ systems and violence alerts to
equip themselves against being harmed by violent patients.
Emergency nurses are influenced by particular triggers in patient behavior to
„flag‟.
The goal is to discover theories that help explain the phenomenon at hand.
1.8 Definitions of Terms and Cases
1.8.1 Violence
According to SA Health Prevention and Management of Workplace Violence and
Aggression Guidelines (2009), the following definitions of violence have been given;
(i) Workplace Violence
“An action or incident that physically or psychologically harms another person. It
includes situations where employees and other people are threatened, attacked or
physically assaulted at work.” p1.
13
(ii) Workplace Aggressive Behaviour
“Incidents where individuals are abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances
arising out of, in course of, their employment, involving an explicit or implicit
challenge to their safety, health and/or well-being.” p1.
(iii) Physical Violence
“The use of physical force against another person or group that results in physical harm.
It includes, but is not limited to, punching, biting, pushing, spitting, slapping, kicking,
beating, shooting and stabbing.”p1.
(iv) Non-physical Violence
“Such as verbal abuse, intimidating and threatening behaviour, may also significantly
affect a person's health and well-being. There does not have to be physical injury for the
violence to be a workplace hazard. Employees might be affected by workplace violence
even if they are not directly involved (for example, by witnessing an incident).”p2.
(v) Psychological Violence
“The use of power against another person or group that results in psychological harm or
an inability to develop professionally. This includes, but is not limited to, verbal abuse,
suggestive behaviour, sexual harassment, threats of physical abuse, intimidation and
bullying.” p2.
1.8.2 Victim/Perpetrator of Violence Presenting to Emergency
Cases alluding to 'victims/perpetrators of violence' possess at least one injury inflicted
by another person during interpersonal violence incidence. These presentations are
14
triaged as 'reported/alleged/ suspected interpersonal violence'. In addition to this, if
these cases are detained by authorized health practitioners, Police powers or authorized
officers, (South Australian Ambulance Service), they may be categorized as
'agitation/delusion/anxiety; alcohol/drug/substance misuse; psychiatric illness;
situational crisis; social problem and/or violent/aggression behaviour. These
presentations may require treatment for mental illness and may have caused, or are at
significant risk of causing, harm to self, others and/or property.
1.8.3 ‘Flag’
A term used for highlighting a patient who exhibits, or has previously exhibited,
predictive cues for violent behaviour or who is threatening workplace safety in the
emergency department via the implementation of electronic charting for nurses using
EDIS.
1.8.4 EDIS
Emergency Department Information Service, a readily available electronic reporting
system which emergency nurses can frequently use to highlight patients in the
emergency setting who commit violent acts or exhibit potential for violent behaviour
(Bichel-Findlay, Callen & Sara 2008).
15
1.8.5 Code Black
According to SA Health Prevention and Management of Workplace Violence and
Aggression Guidelines (2009, p10), 'Every health unit in SA should have appropriate
systems, procedures and resources to respond promptly and effectively when violent or
aggressive incidents occur'. Code Black is the standard internal emergency security
response to violent and/or aggressive threat to workplace safety. This code is activated
by calling #33 or activating personal duress alarms (Central Northern Adelaide Health
Service Clinical Practice Aggression Management 2010).
1.8.6 Attitude
Attitudes are social judgments involving positive or negative evaluations of objects of
thought based on cognitive, affective and behavioural components. Attitudes vary with
strength and accessibility and can be changed by the following factors; direct
instruction, operant conditioning, classical conditioning, social learning, cognitive
dissonance, unconscious motivation and rational analysis (Betsch et al 2001; Fazio &
Roskos-Ewoldson 2005 & Glasman & Albarrain 2006).
1.8.7 Trigger
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1933, p1315) the definition of the word
trigger is: an event that is the cause of a particular action, process, or situation.
16
1.9 Summary of the Thesis
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the research at hand, context and significance of
the phenomenon of interest, the hypothesis and its formulation and statement of
research question. Assumptions involved in the study are listed and definitions given.
Chapter 2 begins by discussing a literature review of the aetiologies, background and
prevalence of violence and defines and describes what is revealed about this at-risk
population which presents to the emergency department for treatment of associated
violence-related injuries. This is followed by a discussion of media portrayal of
community violence and what is said about the relevance of the health care approach to
violence-related presentations. An analysis of emergency departmental policy for
regulation of violence and aggression and workplace safety, incidence and
reporting/under-reporting will follow which will compare with the experience,
perceptions, attitudes and impacts emergency nurses have regarding occupational
violence/safety. Literature examined will pertain to nurse response to violent patients
during care delivery to ascertain whether elements of stereo-typing, marginalization and
stigmatization, (as a means of self-protection), are involved and if so, if this is conveyed
within a culture of nurse consensus. This will lead to a discussion of „flagging‟, why
nurses „flag‟ violent patients and nurses' knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of
„flagging‟. Lastly, the literature review will demonstrate future implications for health
care workers in light of increasing incidence of violence in the workplace.
17
Chapter 3 will provide a discussion of the methods used for this study. It will address
the mixed methods approach used to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data and
explain the development of the research tool, (based on the Delphi technique), used to
generate this data as well the semi-structured focus group interviews. Other topics
mentioned in this chapter will be; piloting and study design, validity/rigor, internal
consistency and reproducibility of items, study setting, participant recruitment and
response rate, framework for data analysis, and ethical considerations and approval.
Chapter 4 will illustrate and describe the results of the study gained by the data
collection techniques and data analysis framework. Results will pertain to the main
points of interest:
Patient-related factors that impact on the flagging behaviors of nurses
Nurse-related factors that impact on the flagging behavior of nurses
Attitude, practice, knowledge and perception of emergency nurses related to
flagging patients in the emergency department.
Chapter 5 will provide a detailed discussion of the study findings pertaining to the main
points of interest. These will be summarized and their significance described.
Limitations/strengths of the study which are discovered will also be discussed. Finally,
possible wider, deeper impacts and/or implications which may exist in emergency
nursing culture may be addressed and recommendations given.
18
1.10 Conclusion
Current evidence shows that violence-related behaviour has a wide range of shifting
social and health-related factors and therefore is difficult to measure in reality.
Approaches to measuring rates of prevalence involve complex factors such as;
inconsistency of defining terms such as 'violence'
nurse willingness to report violence
impacts of exposure to and experience of violence on nurses
levels of policing of violence.
Limitations within literature on the prevalence of violence and its effects are produced
by insufficient statistical evidence needed to concur accurate long term historical trends
in the varied types of violence and nurse experience of violence that exist. However, a
rich body of literature is growing for the application of public health systems in the
diagnosis, treatment/rehabilitation of recently recognized factors underlying violent
activity in young males. This is evident in parliamentary discussions and formation of
diversion programs in order to decrease rates of recidivism in young offenders
(Australian Law Reform Commission 2004; Cashin 2006; Corum 2006; Henderson
2003). However, an area of concern revealed by the literature involves evidence
existing for continued marginalization of this at-risk population by nurses (Bailey 1998;
Bowel et al 2000; Heslop, Elsom & Parker 2000; Howard & Gillboy 2009 & Hegney et
al 2006). This health care approach serves to compound the alienation felt by this
population from mainstream society and exacerbates its psychosocial and physiological
effects. Further study into this phenomenon is recommended, as well as changes in
19
emergency nurse knowledge and understanding of young adolescent males who present
for treatment of wounds sustained in interpersonal violence activity.
20
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction to the Literature Review
Emergency Department violence is increasingly placing emergency nurses at significant
risk of harm in the workplace ( Keely 2002; McPhaul & Lispcomb 2004; Rippon 2000).
Empirical research and data concerning this experience among emergency nurses and
the associated variables is, however, limited (Di Martino 2003; Luck, Jackson & Usher
2007). This is said to be due to the very elusiveness of the nature of violence, its varied
definitions, interpretations and applied subjectivity in perceptions (Ferns 2005b Luck,
Jackson & Usher 2007; McPhaul & Lispcomb 2004). Under-reporting of violence,
multiple reporting systems and varied methods of measuring violence all add to the
unreliability of reported rates of this difficult concept (Ferns 2005a; Gerberich et al
2004; McPhaul & Lispcomb 2004; Rippon 2000). Attempts by researchers have been
made to describe the variables which contribute to workplace violence in emergency
departments and these components are widely said to be workplace factors, personal
factors and environmental factors (Erickson & Williams-Evans 2000; Luck, Jackson &
Usher 2007; Mayhew & Chappell 2003). Since emergency departments are the first
port-of-call for community residents who require healthcare treatment/assistance, there
is an association between characteristics of community populations and violence in
21
emergency departments (Keely 2002; Kowalenko et al 2005; National Institution for
Occupational Safety and Health 2008). These factors include levels of substance abuse,
family violence, poverty, access to weapons and gang formation (Australian Institute of
Criminology 2002; Crilly et al 2004; Cunnigham & Sorenson 2007; Lyneham 2001;
Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007). Other characteristics of presenting populations said to
increase the incidence of violence in the emergency department are unemployment,
interpersonal violence and medical conditions which affect cognitive abilities
(Fernandez et al 2002; Gerberich et al 2004; May & Grubbs 2002). Studies have
demonstrated that a greater likelihood for violence in the emergency department exists
for male adolescents with history of violence (Fernandez et al 2002; Gerberich et al
2004; May & Grubbs 2002). As well as environmental factors, personal factors
attributed to emergency nurses‟ perceptions of violence and its impact and influence on
patient interaction are said to play a part in the cycle of violence within emergency
departments (Catlette 2005; Erickson & Evans-Williams 2000: May & Grubbs 2002;
Wittington & Wykes 1996). Luck, Jackson and Usher (2007), conducted a mixed
method case study on the social processes leading to the rise of aggression between
patient and nurse and the aversive stimuli involved. Distinctive behavioural components
involved in nurse-patient relationships were collectively identified as empirical
categories used by nurses to make informed risk assessment (Luck, Jackson & Usher
2007). Risk assessment is said to be a mechanism of survival among emergency nurses
generated by individual perceptions of safety and perpetuated responses to acts of
violence (Erickson & Williams-Evans 2000; Hockley 2003; Lam 2002; Levin et al
1998; Mayhew & Chappell 2003; Perrone 1999). Since consequences of emergency
department violence on nurses are both physical and psychosocial, (clinical depression,
reduced morale, poor job satisfaction and retention and increased sick leave and stress
22
leave), (Keely 2002; Mahoney 1991; Nabb 2000), it is inferred that specific cultures and
philosophies are evolving towards risk assessment amongst nurses in response to violent
patients (France & Levin 2006). Stigmatisation and exclusion of these patients is a
developing nursing culture due to daily exposure to mismanaged occupational violence
and associated outcomes of delayed post-traumatic stress disorder reaction and
cumulative trauma in nurses (Chung et al 2003; Di Martino 2003; Gerberich et al 2004;
Lanza et al 2006). This is revealed amidst a context of nurse-vulnerability and
inadequate environmental safety (Catlette 2005). Also at risk of increased vulnerability
are patients who often leave the department before assessment and treatment of their
injuries are complete, due to personal marginalization by nurses (Perrone 1999). While
a concerted effort is required to bring a shift in attitude concerning nurse reciprocity
toward violent patients, nurse risk assessment of the social constituents of violent
patients is occurring based on a poorly understood violence aetiology and misleading
public media portrayals of violent adolescent males (Blood et al 2001; Bowel et al
2000; Day et al 2004; Edgar & Rickford 2009; Indermaur 1999; MacDonald 2000;
Sanson 2000; White 2007). An issue of prevention of stereo-typing and marginalisation
by nursing staff towards violent patients who present to emergency departments now
exists. Despite what research says about violence being epidemic, there is little
scientific analysis pertaining to health workplace violence and its impact on nurses and
patient outcomes (Rippon 2000). Most published studies on emergency department
violence stem from retrospective and cross-sectional surveys and descriptive interviews.
In addition to this, perpetrator perspectives are hardly investigated due to the sensitive
nature of these issues (Kennedy 2005). However, disregarding these limitations, a
growing body of literature does exist for continued investigation in understanding the
trajectory of emergency violence, its effects and impacts and required strategies to
23
respond to this phenomenon (Chapman & Styles 2006; Distasio 2002; Gacki-Smith et al
2009). Recently Wilkes et al (2010), aimed to develop a violence assessment tool
specific to emergency department violence and nurse perceptions of violence. Having
recognized the absence of a validated tool for measuring violence indicators, and basing
the approach on previously identified behavioural components by Luck, Jackson and
Usher (2007), the quantitative Delphi technique was adopted to benefit from the
subjective judgments of nurses on a collective base (Adler & Ziglio 1996). This Delphi
technique was considered relevant in its provision of clarification of factors identified in
this literature review. This literature review pertains to examination of issues affecting
the community which are drawn into the emergency department as well as nurse
experience with violence and its effect on future behaviour.
The following topics were reviewed:
environmental factors related to emergency department violence
media portrayal of community violence
the healthcare approach to emergency department violence
impact of workplace violence on emergency nurses
implications for emergency nurses
2.2 Environmental Factors Related to Emergency Department Violence
Healthcare facilities based in communities within rates of high criminal activity,
weapons use, drug and alcohol abuse and interpersonal violence are more likely to
24
experience presentations of populations inducing acts of violence against emergency
nurses (Keely 2002 & NIOSH 2008). These patients are usually male, between the age
of 20 and 40 years and have a history of violence (Fernadez et al 2003). A review of the
literature demonstrates several studies which indicate male adolescents and associated
youth gangs are generally represented by youth who face a number of family, social and
environmental conditions which serve to inhibit their personal development and
consequently prevent their assimilation into society (Bor et al 2004; Santina & White
2000; Sercombe 2002 & White 2007). In addition to this it is revealed that social
problems such as, unemployment, poverty and decreased societal opportunities affect
the physical and psychosocial well-being of young people and that this consequently
results in an increased detriment for neighbourhood cohesion (Daly et al 2004 &
Zubrick 2006). Findings also reveal that certain factors and conditions influence violent
and aggressive, or anti-social, behaviour and that the risk of involvement in serious
criminal behaviour is proportionate to the number of these factors or conditions existing
in an offender's life over time (Sanson et al 2000 & Cashmore et al 2002). These factors
can be distal, (occurring early in life), or proximal, (occurring later in life), and as they
accumulate, so too does the risk of involvement in violent, anti-social behaviour. These
factors make up the characteristics that contribute to the precursors of aggression and
violent behaviour expressed by this particular at-risk population (Corum 2006; Day et al
2004 & Indemaur1999). Studies involving observation and patient case reports by
Martens (2004) conclude that aggression and violent behaviour is seen as a result of
social forces, or individual disposition. This implies that the external environment and
situational forces surrounding an individual, along with an individual's focus or inherent
values, may significantly influence an offender's choice to use violence or aggression in
a given circumstance. These social factors range from family environments in which
25
inadequate parenting, weak bonding between parent(s) and offspring, or parental
neglect, exist as well as implementation of harsh, inconsistent and/or abusive discipline
(Cashmore et al 2002; Daly et al 2004; Sanson et al 2000). The recently formed Ozgang
Research Network has produced findings, following systematic research into youth
gang formations, which demonstrate that family disintegration, destitution, hardship and
neediness may inevitably lead to involvement of adolescents with delinquent peers, and
victimisation. These are also considered by criminologists to be social forces indicative
of violent and aggressive behaviour (White 2002). Martens (2004), continues to add to
this rich source of literature by revealing that influential personal disposition is believed
to encompass biological make-up such as age, gender, genetics and personality, as well
as low levels of intelligence, concentration span and socio-emotional learning process.
This may be accompanied by a lack of ability to internalise dialogue, affection, thought
and/or behaviour (Cashmore et al 2002). Other major theories which are documented as
contributing to these precursors are illegal substance abuse, ready access to weapons,
social dislocation, deterioration of social morality, media influence, video games, lack
of self-constraint and chronic physical problems (Corum 2006). Findings and
conclusions from the literature consistently identified that this at-risk population is
characterised by the function of aggression and violence being a response to social
pressures. This response is perceived through the dispositional nature of the perpetrator
where decision making consists of a rationale based on beliefs, values and perspectives
considered to be less than good, logical or optimal (Zubrick 2006). The above
mentioned precursors contribute significantly to the aetiology of the relationship
between crime and mental disorder which identifies this at-risk population. A recent
article addressing these aetiologies advocates for violence offenders as patients rather
than their criminalisation (Henderson 2003).
26
2.3 Media Portrayal of Community Violence
A briefing paper addressed to the New South Wales, (NSW), Parliament by Lozusic
(2002), reveals that although the word 'gang' is not defined in the criminal law of any
Australian jurisdiction, it is used freely by the media to describe criminal or anti-social
activity by young males. In addition to this, White (2007) asserts in his research paper.
'Youth Gangs, Violence and Anti-social Behaviour', that considerable media, political
and police attention is frequently being received by gangs concerning their proliferation
and criminal and/or anti-social behaviour. Literature reveals that public acceptance of
portrayals induced by this attention causes public over-reaction and stereo-typing of
youth groups and serves to inadvertently enhance gang cohesion, facilitate its growth
and lead to increased criminal activity (Blood et al 2006; Edgar & Rick 2009;
McDonald 2000; Santina & White 2000; White 2007). Exactly how much reporting is
based on selected or excluded social statistical information recently came under scrutiny
in research involving five case studies of suicide and mental health and illness. These
cases were examined for the varying degrees of editorial control over responsible
reporting and its constituents practised by the media (Blood et al 2006). It remains
prominently obvious that studies of the relationship between media coverage of crime
and official data find news coverage of violence differs in many ways from official
statistics (Sanson et al 2000). In fact, in his paper addressing violence among young
people in Australia, Sercombe (2002), goes on to say that the media is not only
responsible for exploiting the widely misunderstood and tragic outcome of the day-to-
day violence that many young people have lived with all their lives, but it is also
responsible for sensationalising the consequential reproduction of this violence in their
personal relationships and in their relationship with society. According to Endreny
27
(1985, p242), 'Certainly the structure of journalism does not nurture, much less
mandate deliberate concern with contemplation of the scientific values governing social
science'. The media has successfully created grounds for main stream society to cast
doubt on the motivation of all groups of young people and their activity (Sanson 2000;
Santina & White 2000; White 2002). Despite the media's promotion of prejudicial
ideas, findings revealed in a paper presented at the Children and Crime: Victims and
Offenders Conference, clearly state that no dependable data-base actually exists for
statistical levels of prevalence of youth violence in Australia (Boni 1999). Despite the
questionable motivations of the media for reporting youth violence, a recent qualitative
study by the Criminology Research Council on conceptualisation and management of
fear experienced by people in relation to risk of becoming a victim of crime, reveals the
public majority accept fear of victimisation by gangs as normal. Although most
participants held cynical attitudes towards the media, 80% agreed to Australia having
become a more dangerous society (Tulloch 1998).
2.4 The Healthcare Approach to Emergency Department Violence
A global consensus in literature now exists for increasing incidence of occupational
violence in nursing – more so in emergency departments (Australian Institute of
Criminology 2002; Cooper & Swanson 2001; Gacki-Smith et al 2009; International
Council of Nurses 2005; Krug et al 2002; Leather et al 2002; Mayhew & Chappell
2001; Rumsey et al 2007; World Health Organisation 2005). Authors and resources
reviewed agree that little has been investigated regarding how nurses perceive degrees
of managerial support following incidence of exposure to and experience of workplace
28
violence. In addition to this, little is known on the effects these nurse perceptions have
on stress levels and feelings of vulnerability, job satisfaction and morale (Foley 2004;
Graycar 2003; Howard & Gilboy 2009; Keough et al 2003; Macdonald 2007). Despite
two decades of growth in research on occupational violence, which implicates the
critical necessity for associated effective organisational policy, existing policy which
addresses the rejection of tolerance to violence in the workplace, and its detrimental
effects on recruitment and retention of nurses, has done little to prevent the continuing
escalation of violence experience in emergency departments (Deans 2004; Doyal &
Dolan 2002; Holmes 2006; Keely 2002; McPhaul & Lipscomb 2004; Wand & Coulson
2006). Therefore, it is questionable if enough is being done from a managerial position
to support nurses who work in these combat zones and suffer the consequential
physiological and psychosocial scars as a result of daily occupational violence (Baillie
2005; Hislop & Melby 2003; Rosenstein 2002). Literature which discusses this issue
states that reasons for the lack of organisational support for nurses stem from historical
perspectives of violence such as 'violence being a part of the job', and interpretation of
nurse requirement for support as 'professional failure and/or incompetence' (Deans
2003; Munro 2002;). Ferns and Chojnacka (2005), go on to say that these traditional
perspectives influence nurses to tolerate violence in acceptance of this age old nursing
culture and/or attitude of subservience. Tolerance of violence is said to be evidenced by
the lack of nurse reporting of experiences of violence (Kennedy 2005; Luck, Jackson &
Usher 2006; Mayhew & Chappell 2001; Merfield 2003; Munro 2002; New South Wales
Nurses' Association 2010). Ferns and Chojnacka (2005), warn that despite the various
reasons why nurses fail to report violence-related incidents, failure to do so enhances
danger. There is suspicion that the challenge to report is not being met by nurses as a
result of traditional influences which hold nursing to ransom, keeping it underpowered
29
and preventing it from reaching the professional status it deserves (Farrell 2001; Ferns
& Chojnacka 2005; Palvianen et al 2003). In fact, Stearly (1997), states that nurses
suffer low self-esteem and act as an oppressed population which does not value itself
enough to warrant reporting of verbal and physical aggressive and violent abuse. In
addition to this the public expects nurses who work within healthcare environments to
be compassionate and caring and to therefore not retaliate against patients and their
negative behaviour. Nurses also have a tendency to live up to this expectation and put
the needs and care of the patient before their own (Celik & Bayrakter 2004; Percival
2001). Amidst this cycle of oppression and maltreatment towards nurses, and adding to
the stress-related vulnerability to violence-related trauma experienced by nurses, is the
punitive response from administrative powers to nurse complaints of violence. In fact,
an associated casting of blame on the nurse for the occurrence of violence-related
incidents about which they complain exists (Greco et al 2006; Lyneham 2001; Schriver
et al 2003; Stockowski 2010; Stordeur et al 2001). This remedial-lacking activity serves
to add to the injury to nursing staff and further decreases their self-worth. It also reduces
their opportunity for healthy recovery and sustainment of resilience causing burnout
(Lam 2002; Naismith 2000). In spite of barriers to nurse reporting such as, 'fear of
blame', 'managerial retaliation', 'poor performance review' and 'punitive response',
(Massachusetts Nurses Association 2008), nurse managers do have a responsibility to
provide a safe working environment (Alexander et al 2004; Armstrong 2002; Holmes
2006; Howard & Gilboy 2009; Keely 2002; Wand & Coulson 2006). This is
recommended by Occupational Safety and Health Association guidelines and the
Australian Nursing Federation (ANF 2005; Cartlette 2005; International Labour Office
2002, International Council of Nurses 2002, World Health Organisation 2002, Public
Services International 2002). There is strong expectation for management to engage in
30
the standards set within these policies and to ensure that strategies are implemented to
control risk and prevent violence (Australasian College for Emergency Medicine 2004;
Kennedy 2005; Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004). Methods of control of
violence, such as physical and chemical restraint and seclusion, are being built upon by
de-escalation techniques, staff training and departmental supply of security and police.
Anti-violence committees and task forces have been formed to audit violence and
inform management of its prevalence and need for intervention response agendas (Carr
Smyth 2010; Fulde 2005). Also, a zero tolerance to violence policy is not only
mandated in healthcare facilities but now adopted by Federal Executive (Australian
Nurses Federation 2005). This enforces the obligation of nurse managers to further
commit to policy review and change which attempts to reduce barriers to high rates of
occupational violence and encourage nurse reporting (Gacki-Smith et al 2009;
Stokowski 2010). However, despite these imperative institutional initiatives, the
epidemic of violence and its effects on nurses has now developed to such extent that
the need for Federal and State laws to protect nurses from violence and impose penalties
on offenders is now required (International Council of Nurses 2009; McPhaul &
Lipscomb 2004). In his report entitled 'Violence in the Workplace', Perrone (1999),
states that Criminal Law, which regulates traditional types of violence, (homicide, rape
and robbery), does not correspond to contemporary forms of workplace violence. These
elusive forms of violence are not considered criminal and therefore have no relevance to
the Crimes Act. Under Common Law victims of violence can expect re-mediation from
employers who have a duty of care to their employees. This liability has been ratified by
Occupational Health and Safety Acts which rely on internal policy rather than
legislative jurisdiction to constrain all forms of workplace violence. However, although
assault on nurses cannot be made a felony without Federal or State laws to address this
31
issue, (Gacki-Smith 2009), some Occupational Health and Safety Regulators are
beginning to venture into non-traditional terrain. Recently The Violence Against Nurses
bill went into effect in New York which states that physical assault against a nurse is a
felony subject to a penalty of up to seven years. The success of this bill being passed
occurred after the New York Nurses Association commencing action in 2008 (Hilton
2010). Although strong commitment from management is recommended by policy for
safe working environments, it is evident that challenges now exist for nurse
organisational leaders to pursue legislative involvement at Federal and State levels in
spite of ancestral nurse management perspectives. A serious attempt to reduce violence
against nurses now requires legislative advocacy and support (Gacki-Smith et al 2009;
McPhaul & Lipscomb 2004). Furthermore, it is essential that not only nurse
management but the Government, the community and nurses no longer hold a
perception of violence as being acceptable (Chapman & Styles 2006). The question
arising from this literature review is, does the vestige of the old order of nursing play a
part in the contemporary issue of workplace violence and nurse burnout, and/or, do
recent parliamentary changes in diversion of offenders from courts to healthcare
facilities without associated legislative support for protection have a cataclysmic
negative impact on nurses?
2.5 Impact of Workplace Violence on Emergency Nurses
The cycles of violence involving perpetrators and victims of violence are, turning within
healthcare facilities involving nurses in the front-lines of emergency departments
(Glaister & Kesling 2002). World-wide research demonstrates that an injury sustained
32
by nurses in occupational violence results in both physical and psychological injury
(Aleandri & Sansoni 2006; Rippon 2000). Research also demonstrates that just as
physical disability can be life long, so can the psychological/emotional wounds (Deans
2004; Luck, Jackson & Usher 2006; Lyneham 2001). A systematic review of a twenty
year period of the literature reveals the main areas impacted by violence to be bio-
physical, emotional, cognitive and social (Needham et al 2004). In addition to these
outcomes, career paths and financial status are consequently at risk (Cooper & Swanson
2001; Hislop & Melby 2003; Luck, Jackson & Usher 2006). Performance in health care
delivery is also affected as this is dependent on mastery of the practice setting. Invasion
of this setting changes the nurse concept of the environment and competence levels
(Catlette 2005; Deans 2004; Franz et al 2010). Feeling unsafe after invasion of the
workplace by violent intruders induces feelings of vulnerability, fear and anxiety which
cause hyper-vigilance and hyper-alertness (Gacki-Smith et al 2009; Lyneham 2001,
Needham et al 2004). This in turn causes emotional burnout and decreased energy and
performance/productivity levels which can lead to depression, dependency, low morale
and insomnia due to distressing dreams (Canbez et al 2008; Howard & Gilboy 2009;
Needham et al 2004). Violence induced emotion such as fear, anxiety and anger are
known to contribute to deterioration of interpersonal relationships both at work and
home (Canbez et al 2008). Ongoing emotional upheaval, as a result of persistent
exposure to trauma-related violence exposure, often leads to varying levels of post-
traumatic stress disorder, consequential anti-socialism, and individual desensitisation as
avoidance mechanisms to repeated trauma (Camerino et al 2008; Luck, Jackson &
Usher 2006; Needham et al 2004). As exposure to assault continues, nurses are said to
become less tolerant of negative behaviour and exhibit reduced levels of empathy,
interest and generalised care for others by withdrawing themselves from patient care
33
(Bilgin 2009). As threats to personal integrity and humiliation violate self-respect and
self-confidence, nurses resort to social distancing as a means of self-empowerment at
the risk poor patient outcomes (Bilgin 2009; Glaister & Kesling 2002; Secker et al
2004). These hostile barriers are said to negatively influence patient care (Ferns 2005a).
This was revealed in a study using a developed nursing relationships scale by Ku and
Minas (2010), where items such as 'worry about aggression‟ negatively correlated with
'caring/supportive approach', 'authoritarian stance' and 'negativity'. This study
recommends ongoing exploration of the role of stigma and its influence on nursing
approaches (Ku & Minas 2010). Changes in perceptions of normalcy of the nursing
environment due to assault can indeed lead to callousness and stigmatisation of patients.
This has been known to be followed by emotions such as self-blame, shame or guilt and
resignation – especially if feelings of guilt are reinforced by nursing managers
(Newham et al 2004). Often nurses bear feelings of despair which can lead to
dependency and failure and suicidal ideation due to mismanaged occupational violence
and lack of support from policy and legislation (Jones & Lyneham 2000).
2.6 Implications for Emergency Nurses
For those nurses who stay in the nursing industry as emergency nurses and continue to
face head on the realistic outcomes of a society expressed by shifting diversities in
culture/beliefs, languages, socio-economical standards, ethics/morals, substance
use/abuse, disease, social/economic and political uncertainties, (including terrorism), the
challenge is becoming greater than the resources to meet it with (Fulde 2005;
International Council of Nurses 2009; Kennedy 2005; Mayhew & Chappell 2003;
34
Rosenberg et al 2006; Taylor & Rew 2010). Violence reflects this. Nurses are now
meeting violence with hostility in order to survive this industry of multiple, unaddressed
contemporary issues as they are forced to contend with them alone (Chapman & Styles
2006). Stigmatisation is not only a coping mechanism, but a fast becoming a standard of
nursing care (Bilgin 2009; Canbez et al 2008; Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007;
Whittington & Richter 2006). Little research has been accomplished on the knowledge,
perceptions and attitudes nurses have on violence (Catlette 2005; Ferns 2006; Fulde
2005; International Council of Nurses 2009; Kennedy 2005; Ku & Minas 2010; Munro
2002; Rippon 2000). No standard criteria defines what violence is or identifies its
attributes, signs or symptoms (Chapman & Styles 2006; Crabb et al 2002; Gacki-Smith
et al 2009; Wilkes 2010). There is no central data collection base or agreed means of
measurement for its proliferation or prevalence as it spreads throughout society (Hegney
et al 2006). Nurses suffer threat, shame, judgement and inhibition while under attack
(Howard & Gilboy 2009; Hislop & Melby 2003; Senuzen Ergun & Karadakovan 2005)
while amidst the suffering, reports of this battle are not forthcoming and reasons for this
are uncertain (Ferns 2006; Rippon 2000). One concept is that the construct of reporting
forms is not suitable for conveying the lived experience or contextual reality of the
violent event (Luck, Jackson & Usher 2006). Little research exists on what constitutes a
nurses decision to report or what their beliefs are on the effects of reporting (Chapman
et al 2009; Kongsuwan et al 2009; Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007). However, as long as
battle worn nurses slip away, those engaged in battle do not report,
exploration/investigation by researchers is insufficient, education/training does not
equip, nursing hierarchy remains aloof, policy is unsupportive, unions are handicapped
and government is irresponsible, nurses are left to their own devices for survival
(Aleandri & Sansoni 2006; Chapman & Styles 2006; Loke 2001; Merfield 2003).
35
2.7 Summary
This chapter has reviewed literature on the trajectory of violence in emergency
departments, its aetiology, prevalence, effects and implications. In doing so it is evident
that not only is this contemporary nursing issue significantly complex, but its multiple
facets are not identified or measured effectively. The literature has revealed that this
occurs while nurses are rapidly falling victim to violence and policy makers are slow to
intervene and consequently a subculture of withdrawal from healthcare delivery is
developing. Although nurses have resorted to marginalisation of violence-related patient
factors, and the media influences this activity, the literature review indicates a need for
further exploration into the variables associated with emergency department violence. It
is evident that the existing body of research is weighted towards descriptive studies and
empirical research is limited (Fernandez et al 2002). However, the distinct behavioural
cues for patient-related violence identified in the mixed methods case study by Luck,
Jackson and Usher (2007), are elicited to a greater extent from nurses by the application
Delphi technique used by Wilkes et al (2010), in the endeavour to produce a violence
tool for measurement. This method yields subjective judgments of individuals on a
collective basis allowing for quantitative analysis and interpretation of data (Adler &
Ziglio 1996). The enquiry into nurses' perceptions of violence and its impact on their
attitudes in this empirical study could assist in understanding how nurses are best
facilitated in their challenge to address occupational violence. The following chapter
describes the methodology used to conduct this study.
36
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
3.1 Introduction
An empirical and analytical research approach based on a positivist paradigm helps to
clarify, govern, support and recommend knowledge in the discipline of nursing. This
research can contribute to the improvement of nursing care, patient outcomes and cost
effective, efficient practice (Burns & Grove 2007). This research permits the questions
that arise from daily nursing practice to be answered and can yield new nursing
knowledge which in turn generates appropriate nursing services (Caldwell 1997). This
chapter describes the mixed methods approach used in this study to explore the
variables of nurse-related factors, patient-related factors and nurse knowledge, attitudes,
practices and perceptions of „flagging‟ violent patients in the emergency department. A
description of the research design relating to the underlying paradigms is given. As well
as this, the study population, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment strategies and
the study setting are described.
All researchers have different beliefs and ways of viewing and interacting within their
surroundings. As a result, the ways in which research studies are conducted vary (Polit
& Beck 2008). However, there are certain standards and rules that guide a researcher‟s
actions and beliefs. Such standards or principles can be referred to as a paradigm (Polit
37
& Beck 2008). To gain a better understanding of why and how the researcher chose the
methodological approach in this study the aim of this chapter is to;
1. discuss the paradigm that best fits the focus of this study
2. discuss the research design and methodology utilised in this study
3. discuss the study and data collection activities
4. discuss analysis methods.
3.2 Research Paradigm for this Study
A paradigm is a template produced by a theory held by a researcher. This template is the
frame for the research process based upon the patterns of perceptions and beliefs held
by the inquirer (Weaver & Olsen 2006). To clarify the formation of inquiry and
methodological choices regulating this research, the paradigm adopted for this study is
initially discussed.
Nursing practice involves facilitation of extensive multiple and varied patient
requirements which are carried out in a manner of sustained objectivity based on a
neutral stance (Weaver & Olsen 2006). Therefore, a mixed methodology was necessary
to address this diversity and complexity of practice taking place within an environment
of violence. A quantitative methodology stems from the positivist philosophy. However,
positivists argue that only one objective reality exists (Weaver & Olson 2006). The
researcher believed this perspective to be unsuitable as it did not allow for the
investigation of the many truths and multiple realities associated with emergency nurse
experiences under investigation in this study. Hence, the researcher decided to
38
incorporate qualitative methodologies into the research design as well as quantitative
methodologies to permit investigation of the many variables concerned with this
research. Therefore, this study utilised a mixed method approach to explore reasons why
nurses „flag‟ violent patients. The use of both qualitative and quantitative
methodologies was necessary to encompass the different aspects of nursing approach to
care of violent patients. This type of paradigm sanctions the all-inclusive perspective of
the emergency nurse and violent environment (Weaver & Olson 2006). Furthermore,
the interpretive paradigm, which provides an opportunity for individual expression of
research participants, (Weaver & Olson 2006), was also considered by the researcher to
enable satisfactory capture of the observed complex nature of the phenomenon. In the
end, a template of combined quantitative/positivist with the qualitative/interpretive
paradigms was chosen for this study. This combination of paradigms would give the
researcher the ability to statistically analyse the scientific data while also recognizing
the complex psychosocial and emotional factors that influence nurse „flagging‟
behaviour. The discussion that follows elaborates and describes how each paradigm and
methodological approach was implemented in this study.
3.3 Research Design and Methodology
In this mixed methods study, quantitative, (self-reported questionnaires), and
qualitative, (semi-structured focus groups) data collection techniques were used.
Questionnaire items in the form of structured and multi-faceted multiple choice
questions, Likert-Scale questions and open-ended free text questions were used to
collect data in this study. In addition, qualitative research in the form of participant
focus group interviews was used. According to Morse and Richards (2002), qualitative
39
descriptive approaches ensure that evidence of experience and knowledge are acquired
when quantitative methods are used. Qualitative open-ended questions allow individual
participants the opportunity to disclose their perceptions and knowledge (Morse &
Richards 2002). As qualitative descriptive research assists with emphasizing the
existence and extent of issues, and may lead to recommendations which induce policy
change, interviewing emergency nurses who work in patient-related violence fields, was
considered to give a deeper understanding of the current issues and experiences
associated with provision of nursing care to violent patients (Taylor, Kermode &
Roberts 2007).
3.4 Research Tool Development
No previously tested questionnaire was available for this research study. Therefore, the
researcher was required to develop and validate the questionnaire before use. The
research instrument was constructed after a thorough review of the available published
literature, and observations supporting the phenomenon under investigation. The
researcher was confronted with two major issues when developing the questionnaire.
Firstly, a tool needed to be developed that would accurately assess the variables under
investigation, and secondly, the researcher needed it to be consistent when used on
various levels of nurses with different demographic backgrounds. These two
characteristics of a measurement tool, (validity and reliability), needed to be explored
before use (DeVaus 2002 & Schneider et al 2003). How the researcher addressed the
issues of validity and reliability during the questionnaire development will be explored
below.
40
Luck, Jackson and Usher (2007), in a study of emergency department workplace
violence entitled „STAMP: components of observable behaviour that indicate potential
for patient violence in emergency departments‟, identified five predictive cues used by
the nurses for the evaluation of potential patient-related violence. These cues formed
the acronym „STAMP‟. According to Luck, Jackson and Usher (2007, p14), „The five
interrelated components of STAMP are: staring and eye contact, tone and volume of
voice, anxiety, mumbling and pacing‟. These identified empirical factors mirrored
earlier studies of methods for violence detection used by nurses, (Mayhew & Chappell
2001). Not only did this study identify these empirical components, but it also explored
the psychological responses of nurses ascribed to potential violence and violence
incidents at work. Hence, meaning was conveyed to nurse response to violence. These
cues also contributed to the evidence-based establishment of a tool for the assessment of
nurse perception of causes and/or indicators for violence by Wilkes et al (2010). Wilkes
et al (2010), used the Delphi technique and these cues for an evidence-base framework
for the assistance of their study. Initially the five predictive cues were used to create a
37 item assessment tool. The Delphi technique is defined as a set of procedures for the
elicitation and refinement of the opinions of an expert group (Dalkey 1967). Outcomes
of this elicitation of collective, subjective opinions/judgments are said to be objective
(Johnson & King 1988), since it allows the expert group as a whole to address a
complex phenomenon. This statistical combination of group responses allows for a
quantitative analysis and interpretation of all group participants (Rowe & Wright 1999).
This is best used when deeper knowledge about an observed issue or phenomena is
sought (Adler & Ziglio 1996). In round two of the Delphi technique based on the survey
by Wilkes et al (2010), the initial 37 cues, (based on the five identified cues from Luck,
Jackson and Usher (2007)), were reduced to 28 cues and round three reduced these cues
41
to a 17-item violence specific tool for the nurse prediction of potential patient-related
violence. These two studies were used as a framework for the development of the
research tool used for this study‟s examination of why nurses „flag‟ emergency patients.
Data pertaining to nurse demographics, patient-related and nurse-related factors of
„flagging‟, and nurse practice, knowledge and perception of „flagging‟ were collected in
the form of structured and multi-faceted multiple choice questions, Likert-scale
questions and open-ended free text questions (See Appendix 2: Research
Questionnaire). Semi-structured interviews were also incorporated into the study design
to investigate and describe current emergency nurse practices of „flagging‟ violent
patients. (See Appendix 3: Focus Group Interview Questions). Nurses who were
actively practicing in the emergency department setting were therefore invited to
participate in focus group interviews to elicit experiences about why they „flagged‟
patients. The use of the developed research tool and the establishment of focus group
interviews were considered ideal for revealing the complexities experienced by nurses
as they interact with violent patients within their work environment.
3.5 Study Setting/Research Site
Overall, the participating hospital provided a range of characteristics and services that
offered the opportunity for this study to encounter numerous nurse-„flagging‟/patient-
related violence issues. Some of the features of the hospital included 151 general bed
facility, located to the north of Adelaide in South Australia. The hospital serves as a
catchments area for a large community consisting of various levels of low socio-
economic populations and sees greater than 54 000 presentations through its emergency
doors per year. The rate of presentations is reported to increase yearly by 5-6%. (News
42
Review Messenger 2011). This facility often transfers critical patients to a larger, more
specialized tertiary inner city hospital. The emergency department currently employs
approximately 159 nurses amidst a background of dynamic rates of retention and
recruitment. Since the month of July in 2005, there has been a steady increase of code
black incidents within this facility ranging from 30 in July 2005 to 148 in July 2010.
(See Appendix 4: ED Violence Incidents Data). There is an average of 32 violent
incidents per week at this emergency department (ABC News 2011). The most common
causes for code blacks are patient detainment, altered perception and need to provide a
safe environment, followed by high risk behaviour, psychosis and unrealistic
expectations. (See Appendix 4: ED Violence Incidents Data). Rates of submission of
violence and aggression incidents reports by nurses in this facility greatly differ from
the actual number of recorded code blacks which take place for the same periods. (See
Appendix 4: ED Violence Incidents Data). In addition to these characteristics, are issues
of overcrowding and under resourcing due to the increasing population within the
surrounding region and communities which add to nurse experiences of increased stress
levels, burn-out, low morale and fear of violence (The Advertiser 2011). These issues
have been cited in various local and major newspapers on a regular, ongoing basis.
Articles from the newspapers depict, (although possibly with exaggeration), concerned
medical and nursing organizations attempting to lobby politicians within the
Department of Health concerning escalating violence in the workplace as the population
grows and demands and waiting periods increase (See Appendix 5: Articles). The
emergency department is known to run at a 130% capacity most days and holds 60-80
patients while being planned and staffed for a maximum of 48 patients (891 ABC
Adelaide). Therefore, nurse-„flagging‟/patient-related violence issues, which are central
themes within this study, had a significant relevance within this facility. The facility
43
expressed a willingness to participate in the research study. (See Appendix 11: CNHAS
Ethics Approval & Hospital Setting Willingness to Support).
3.6 Study Population
A purposeful sample was recruited in this mixed methods study. The sample included
emergency nurses from the research setting described above. The accessible population
included 150 nurses working full time, part time and casual.
3.7 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
The study inclusion criteria are listed below:
1. Registered and Enrolled Nurses holding a current licence with the Australian
Health Practitioners Registration Association.
2. All nurses working in the department at the time of the study who are employees
of the organization are included as potential participants.
3. Nurses working full/part time or casual (at least two shifts per week) in the
emergency department
4. Nurses between the age of 20-65 years, (since entry level for nursing is greater
than 20 years and no one over the age of 65 years was employed in the
emergency department).
5. Nurses with a minimum of six months experience in emergency nursing. The
researcher believed that the pressures that accompany being a new employee
were not an ideal or stable background in which to commence this research
project.
44
The inclusion criteria were established to increase the chances of obtaining enough data
for each participant and to minimise the extent of variation between participant
populations (Polit & Beck 2008). For example, inclusion criteria (2) stated that nurses
needed to be regular hospital employees and inclusion criteria (3) stated that participants
had to work at least to two shifts per week in the ED. The researcher believed that
unless the employee worked a minimum amount of shifts that the chances of collecting
enough data would be severely compromised. Since casual employees do not have
regular rostered shifts there was doubt as to how much data would be available during
data collection.
The study exclusion criteria were:
1. Agency nurses who work from time to time in the department.
2. Graduate Program nurses.
3. Nurses that work less than two shifts per week.
Emergency nurses with varied experiences, background and academic and career
achievement were included. All participants were free to withdraw their participation
at any time without prejudice. Out of the 159 nurses who were approached 85 nurses
(53.4%) participated in the study and of those participants, 27 nurses (31.7%) consented
to participate in the focus group interviews. All nurses who participated in the study met
the inclusion criteria. Out of the 159 nurses who were approached, 26 were on annual
leave at the time.
45
3.8 Recruitment Strategies
Announcement of the study was advertised throughout the emergency department via
flyers posted on staff noticeboards one week prior to the introduction of the research
survey. Recruitment lectures were arranged with the permission of the ED nurse
manager. Recruitment was from the investigator‟s workplace where afternoon nursing
handover was used as a recruitment session in which to introduce the study and
distribute questionnaires. The allocated time for the research recruitment presentations
was 45 minutes. These sessions were arranged and conducted similarly to the
educational activities that occurred for ED nurses. All attendants at these sessions, (14
sessions in total over a two week period), were recorded and non-attendees received
questionnaires via internal department mailing system. During these sessions the
purpose of the study, procedures involved, time of commencement and duration were
explained. Any questions raised by personnel during these sessions were addressed
immediately by the investigator. To maintain consistency, all of the recruitment lectures
were presented by the researcher. (See Appendix 6: Advertisement for Survey
Participant Recruitment). Recruitment for structured interviews was explained in the
handover sessions. A „Willingness to Participate in Focus Group Interviews Form‟ was
included in the questionnaire. Interested personnel were invited to fill in this form,
detach it from the questionnaire and submit their names and contact details to the
questionnaire collection box prior to the end of the survey period. (See Appendix 7:
Willingness to Participate in Focus Group Interviews). A Participant Information Sheet
was included in the questionnaire containing the chief investigators contact details. (See
Appendix 8: Participant Information Sheet). Potential participants had two weeks to
decide whether to take part in the study giving adequate opportunity for them to discuss
46
the proposed survey with their peers and the researcher. Reminder notices were also
issued distributed around the ED prior to completion of the survey period.
Questionnaire response rate was enhanced by design consisting of simplicity, regularity
and symmetry (Fanning 2005).
3.9 Ethics Approval
One of the most important aspects of research is to protect participants from harm. The
type of ethical issues encountered in qualitative and quantitative research may
sometimes differ considerably. Therefore, a variety of ethical and legal issues must be
considered before commencing research which includes human subjects (Schneider et
al, 2003; DeVaus, 2002; NHMRC, 2006). Across Australia, the National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the national organisation that provides support,
advice, and develops regulations about health and human research ethics in Australia
(Australian Government 2007). For this study, the researcher used such guidelines as a
primary source for highlighting issues in this study. The specific ethical issues relevant
to protecting research participants throughout this research project included;
Voluntary participation/informed consent
Risk/beneficence of participants
Anonymity.
All of these topics will be discussed below.
47
3.10 Approval from the Ethics Committee
This research study was examined by members of the Research Committee of the
University of Adelaide, South Australia after submitting a research proposal. (See
Appendix 9: Research Proposal). There was one concern raised by the University of
Adelaide Ethics Committee members surrounding the issue of participant‟s ability to
seek counselling in the event of becoming distressed while participating in the survey
and interviews. This concern delayed the initial time set for the survey period. In
response to this concern the researcher was able to reiterate that access to hospital
debriefing and counselling measures was clearly set out on the participation information
sheet. The Ethics Committee members were satisfied with all aspects of this proposal
and approval was granted on the 6th
June 2011. (See Appendix 10: University of
Adelaide Ethics Approval). In addition to this research approval, proposal for this
research was submitted to the participating hospital‟s Ethics Committee and granted.
(See Appendix 11: Central Northern Adelaide Health Service Ethics Approval).
48
3.11 Voluntary Participation/Informed Consent
In order for participants to make a true choice of whether to participate in any study,
individuals require accurate information (DeVaus 2002). All potential participants were
informed about the range of matters relating to the research study they were to consider
being involved in before giving consent. (Schneider et al 2003). To provide potential
participants with accurate information about the study, an information sheet was
developed (See Appendix 8: Participant Information Sheet). This information sheet
detailed criteria such as; purpose and possible benefits of the study, assurance of
confidentiality and contact details of chief investigators and Human Ethics Committee
Secretary and CNAHS committee members for complaints or raising of related issues.
Also information was given concerning accessibility of counselling and bereavement
services available within the health facility. No coercion or persuasion was used to
recruit participants. Participant anonymity and confidentiality was secured during
survey administration and collection and piloting. A clearly labelled, locked collection
box was placed in the staff tearoom for the return of questionnaires. The collection box
was personally collected by the researcher at the close of the three week period.
Individual completion and submission of the questionnaire was considered as implied
consent of the participant. Immediately after the closing of the questionnaire period,
focus group interviews were held over the next two weeks in a secluded tutorial room
during the usual allocated time for staff education, (60 minutes). Questions were open-
ended, clearly formulated and neutral so that their formation does not influence the
answer, and carefully sequenced. (See Appendix 3: Focus Group Interview Questions).
Data collection from interviews occurred via digital audio recording. This method can
obtain verbal information verbatim. To protect the confidentiality and anonymity of
49
respondents, particular care was taken to ensure questions did not reveal the identity of
individuals. Each of the focus groups contained four participants. Participants, who
were already aware of the upcoming interviews via research introductory sessions held
in nursing handovers, were invited to nominate themselves for interview by completing
and returning the appropriate willingness form attached to the questionnaire. In the
event of no one nominating themselves reminders for recruitment were prepared.
Nominees were notified of the proposed date and time of the interview sessions by the
researcher and their availability discussed. All nominees who participated in the
interviews received a consent form to sign attached to a participant information sheet.
(See Appendix 7: Consent to Participate in Focus Group Interviews and Associated
Information Sheet).
3.12 Risk/Beneficence of Participants
According to Minichiello et al (1999), risk is considered to be something that may pose
as a potential harm to participants. Such harm may include injury, emotional distress,
loss of self-esteem, or embarrassment. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that the risk
research participants take when agreeing to partake in a research study never exceeds
the potential of humanitarian benefits of the knowledge to be gained (Pilot, Beck &
Hungler 2001). In this study there were three main types of data collected that included
personal details about the research participants; personal interview responses and
participant responses from the questionnaire. Although some demographic data was
collected from all participants, none of the participants could be identified from such
information. Therefore, data collected in this manner was seen as having a minimal risk
50
(Pilot, Beck & Hunger 2001; Taylor, Kermode & Roberts 2007). Another potential risk
was the possibility of participants becoming stressed and upset related to conveying
experience of exposure to patient-related violence. The researcher did not want the
participants to feel isolated or insecure about any of the research details. Therefore, the
researcher provided an opportunity to facilitate all participants in case they wanted to
discuss any concerns or uncertainties they had. The researcher provided her contact
phone number that all participants could access 24 hour/7day a week if they required.
3.13 Confidentiality/Privacy
Every attempt was made to keep all research data private and confidential. No nurse
participant names were documented on the questionnaires. Nurse participants were
identified only by a code number. The code list was maintained by the researcher and
kept securely stored. The Government‟s policy „Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research‟, (formally adopted by the University of Adelaide), stipulates
specific guidelines that address issues such as; data storage, authorship, publications,
conflict of interest, ethics clearance, and research misconduct. This policy specifies the
minimum period of time the researcher must retain data, persons who should have
access to confidential data, and where, how, and by whom confidential data must be
stored (Australian Government 2007). Any reference to participants during the taped
interviews was not transcribed from the audiotapes nor used in the final data analysis.
References to the participants in the results chapter were made as pseudonyms.
51
3.14 Security of Data
All of the written data will be destroyed in accordance with University of Adelaide‟s
Conduct for Research Policy requirements. The audio-taped interviews were erased
once data analysis was completed and the associated chapter was finalized. The only
persons who had access to the research data was the researcher and her research
supervisors. No copies of the audio tapes or corresponding transcripts were made.
3.15 Data Gathering Instruments and Procedures
In this study, data was collected from two activities. The two primary data sources
included the survey questionnaire and focus group interviews. The tool development
and the general methodological process for each activity will be discussed under the
specific headings below.
3.15.1 Issues of Validity and Reliability
(i) Validity
Validity is the most fundamental consideration in tool development and refers to the
degree that the instrument measures what it claims to measure (DeVaus 2002). There
are three basic ways in which to assess the validity of an instrument; criterion, content
and construct validity. The criterion validity approach compares the new tool to an
existing well-accepted tool that measures the same concept (DeVaus 2002; Schneider, et
al 2003). Other instruments were found in the published literature - namely Wilkes et al
(2010) and Luck, Jackson and Usher (2007), (as discussed earlier), which assisted to
52
test the rigor of this instrument. Consideration was also given to the issue of content
validity. Content validity refers to the ability of the instrument‟s items to represent the
content of the given construct (DeVaus 2002; Schneider et al 2003). To tackle the issues
of content validity, the researcher reviewed literature on completed studies by well-
established research experts to compare the questionnaire‟s content. The researcher
wanted to ensure that the tool focused on fundamental and essential nurse „flagging‟
concepts (DeVaus 2002; Schneider et al 2003). The language and sentence structure of
every question was examined carefully so that the participants would not be confused
by the content of the questions. The last type of validity that required discussion is
construct validity. Construct validity refers to the extent in which the instrument
measures a theoretical trait (DeVaus 2002; Schneider et al 2003). This type of validity is
difficult to achieve and was not used in this study as there was no single, well
established theory associated with nurse „flagging‟ suitable for this study.
(ii) Reliability
As well as the issue of validity, it was essential to consider the reliability of the
questionnaire. Reliability addresses the ability of a measuring tool to provide the same
result on repeated occasions (DeVaus 2002; Schneider, et al. 2003). The method of test-
retest reliability addresses the question of consistent answers from multiple occasions of
use. DeVaus (2002), suggests that a trial of the instrument be undertaken on a smaller
but similar practice sample to that being used in the study. To address the issue of
questionnaire reliability in this study, pilot testing was used. Twelve experienced
emergency nurses were asked to complete a pilot questionnaire. Eleven nurses
completed and submitted the questionnaire. (See Appendix 12: Pilot Questionnaire).
The answers from the pilot questionnaire were evaluated and the tool assessed for
53
consistency and reliability of questions. Results indicated that the questionnaire was a
reliable tool. The final content of the questionnaire included short answer and tick box
response questions as well as a demographic questionnaire section (see Appendix 2:
Research Questionnaire)). The researcher developed the questionnaire by selecting
information that was considered fundamental to nurse experience of patient-related
violence knowledge. The questions were designed to target and explore emergency
nurse knowledge, attitude and practice relating to „flagging‟ violent patients. In addition
to the questionnaire data, the researcher reviewed policy and procedure manuals located
at the hospital research setting. (See Appendix 13: Hospital Policy). This information
was used to assist the researcher during the development of the questionnaire.
3.15.2 Review
The Occupational Health and Safety policy for the study was reviewed by the
researcher. This included guidelines for nurses to follow when confronted with violent
patients. Information from these policies needed to be considered before finalising
participant questionnaires and preparation for focus group interviews. The rationale
behind this review was to assess the areas of occupational violence and aggression that
had already been addressed by hospital policy and whether or not a policy for the
practice of „flagging‟ existed
3.15.3 Focus Group Interview Guides
Interviews completed during this study involved three groups of four participants of
various nurse classifications. To maintain consistency, all of the interviews were
conducted by the researcher. One set of interview questions was developed for all
groups of participants (see Appendix 3: Focus Group Interview Questions). The open-
54
ended questions used during the interview process were based on recommendations
from existing literature and conversations with the emergency nursing staff. The use of
the same questions for each group and the use of a single interviewer was thought to
increase the reliability of the data collected (Fazzone et al 2000). Fazzone et al. (2000)
found that the multiple perspectives gathered during focus groups provided insight into
the consistency and accuracy of data. The reason for the inclusion of the focus groups
was to enable further evaluation of nurse „flagging‟ of violent patients. The open ended
semi-structured questions utilised during the focus group discussions centred on
discovering what the nurses‟ perceptions were regarding their experience of flagging
violent patients during their daily nursing practices. In addition, the researcher was also
interested in discovering if participants‟ believed they gained any benefit or practical
assistance from the practice of „flagging‟. Responses could reveal the need for any
changes in management of violent patients, reporting methods, or nursing education
which may benefit future care for emergency department violent patients and nurses.
3.15.4 Statistical Analysis
Demographic items in the questionnaire tool in section A search for data presenting
with categorical characteristics such as „age‟ and „gender‟, „overseas trained‟, and „
Time in emergency field‟. Categories such as these do not allow for mathematical
manipulation and are assigned symbols revealing percentages, ranges, frequencies and
modes (Schneider 2003). Other questionnaire items, as in sections B and C of the
questionnaire, search for data concerning choices representing a „…relative ranking of
attributes levels‟ (Pilot & Beck 2008, p.557), where measurement relies on the
participant‟s subjective opinion of „less‟ or „more‟ and is revealed in percentages,
ranges and frequencies from modes and medians while absolute zero doesn‟t exist
55
(Schneider 2003). The data collection tool for this study uses two types of measurement
in research, namely; nominal and ordinal. (See Appendix 2: Research Questionnaire).
These data results will be discussed and presented in tables and figures in the next
chapter, Chapter 4 the results chapter.
3.15.5 Thematic Analysis
For this study, thematic analysis allowed the researcher to report the experiences of the
study participants which were captured during the interview process. Thematic analysis
is a method for „…identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data‟
(Braun & Clarke 2006, p 79). Thematic analysis is thought by many to be a useful
method to analyse qualitative data and provide rich, detailed, and complex accounts of
data (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane 2006; Braun & Clarke 2006). Thematic analysis is an
effective analysis method for interview data as it does not rely on a theoretical
framework (Tuckett 2005; Braun and Clarke 2006). Therefore, the researcher believed
that its use in this study would be suitable and beneficial. A detailed discussion in
Chapter 4 will describe how the researcher applied this analysis process to the study
data.
3.16 Conclusion
This chapter began with a description of the research paradigms which guided the study
methodology. Following the discussion about the research paradigms, a detailed
description of the research design and methods was shown to support the researcher‟s
choice of sampling, data collection and analysis. Ethical issues such as voluntary
56
participation, consent, risk, privacy and confidentiality, and security of data were
addressed in detail.
There were only two published studies that could be found that clearly identified nurse
„flagging‟ related categories (Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007 & Wilkes et al 2010). The
process of evaluation of the phenomenon was assisted by both qualitative and
quantitative data collected. There will be an in-depth discussion in Chapter 5 regarding
the outcomes of the utilization of Luck, Jackson and Usher (2007) and (Wilkes et al
(2010) studies which identified 17 cues/categories nurses use for identifying patient-
related violence. The next chapter will reveal quantitative and qualitative results from
the survey questionnaire and focus group interviews.
57
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will provide a detailed description of participant‟s demographics and the
analysis of qualitative and quantitative data collected during this study. There were two
data sets collected to address the study objectives (1) the questionnaire and (2) the focus
group interviews. Raw data from the questionnaire was summarised in tables and graphs
using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Nominal and ordinal data was captured
in Section A relating to nurse-related factors and nominal data was captured using
ranking of items in Section B, C and D. Qualitative data captured from the focus group
interviews and open-ended items in the questionnaire were analysed thematically into
sub-categories and major themes.
4.2 Study Sample
At the time of the study, there were 159 nurses working in the emergency department,
26 of whom were on leave. Out of the 133 nurses who were present at the time of the
study and approached for recruitment, eight nurses were Duty Nurse Coordinators.
These nurses took charge of all issues raised in the emergency department in the
absence of Executive staff and attended all departmental issues raised involving
58
complaint, disaster, conflict, risk to safety and code blacks and were therefore included
in the study. Junior Registered Nurses differed from Senior Emergency Nurses in that
they were classified as Level 1 RN‟s while Senior Emergency Nurses were classified as
Level 2 RN‟s and acted in level 3 positions in the absence of Level 3 RNs (Clinical
Service Coordinators and Duty Nurse Coordinators). A total of eighty five (n=85),
emergency nurses participated in the survey giving a response rate of 63.9%. The
response rate for Enrolled Nurses was 87.0%, for Junior Registered Nurses was 67.0%
and for Senior Registered Nurses was 27.30%. Less than a third of the senior Registered
Nurses responded to the survey. (See Table 1 below: Response Rate by Emergency
Nurse Classification).
Table 1 Response Rate by Emergency Nurse Classification
Nurse Classification Total
employed On Leave Present Responses %
Enrolled Nurse 25 2 23 20 87.0%
Junior Registered Nurse 105 17 88 59 67.0%
Senior Registered Nurse 29 7 22 6 27.3%
Total 159 26 133 85 63.9%
59
4.3 Section A1 Emergency Nurse Participant Demographics
Table 2 below provides an overview of the demographics of the emergency nurse
participants. The mode age class was 41-50 years (31.8%) with 28.2% aged 31-40
years. Eighty per cent of the sample was female. Nearly a quarter of the sample (23.5%)
were Enrolled Nurses, two thirds (69.3%) were junior Registered Nurses and a third
were senior Registered Nurses. The majority of nurses (38.8%) had been in their current
position for two to five years. Similarly, the majority of the nurses (36.5%) had been in
the emergency field for three to five years. Most nurses (35.3%) had been in the current
location for up to two years. There were no Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
nurses and 7.0% of nurses were overseas trained. The mode shifts worked were part-
time permanent (51.7%), all shifts (77.6%) and seven day roster (93%). The highest
qualification held was a Master‟s degree (3.5%), followed by a Post a Graduate
Diploma (17.6%). Most nurses (41%) had achieved a Bachelor of Nursing. The majority
of nurses (76.4%) were not studying at the time of the study and of those who were,
17.6% were studying a Post Graduate Diploma.
60
Table 2 Demographic Summary of 85 Emergency Nurses including Age, Gender and Career
Experience
Variables Categories n % Variables Categories n %
Age Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Is
21-30 23 27 Yes 0 0
31-40 24 28.2 No 85 100
41-50 27 31.8 Overseas Trained
51-60 11 12.9 Yes 6 7
Gender No 79 93
Male 17 20 Work Status
Female 68 80 Full time perm 34 40
Current Position Part time perm 44 51.7
EN 3 3.5 Casual 7 8.2
EN Diploma 12 14.1 Shifts Worked
EN Ad Diploma 5 5.9 All Shifts 66 77.6
RN L1 37 43.5 Day Shifts 7 8.2
RN L2 7 8.2 Night Shifts 10 11.8
RN L3 15 17.6 Rostering
ACSC 3 3.5 7 Day Roster 79 93
DNC 2 2.3 Mon-Fri 3 3.5
NP 1 1.2 Weekends Only 3 3.5
Time Current Position Highest Qualification
< 6 months 7 8.2 EN Certificate 2 2.3
6-12 months 6 7 EN Diploma 12 14
12-18 months 9 10.6 Advanced Dip EN 6 7
2-5 years 33 38.8 Nursing Degree 35 41
6-10 years 18 21.2 Post Grad Cert 12 14
> 10 years 12 14 Post Grad Dip 15 17.6
Time in Emergency Field Masters 3 3.5
0-2 years 25 29.4 Currently Studying
3-5 years 31 36.5 Yes 20 23.5
6-10 years 21 24.7 No 65 76.4
> 10 years 8 9.4 Level of current Study
Time in current location EN Diploma 1 1.2
0-2 years 30 35.3 Nursing Degree 2 2.3
3-5 years 29 34 Post Grad Cert 2 2.3
6-10 years 20 23.5 Post Grad Dip 15 17.6
> 10 years 6 7
62
Table 3 Emergency nurse Flagging Behaviour (including Recency and Frequency of Flagging) in relation to Demographics
Have you ever 'flagged'? Recency of flagging Frequency of flagging
Last week or
More than
At least
More than
No Yes more recently
a week ago monthly monthly
n [%] n [%] 2 p n [%] n [%] 2 p n [%] n [%] 2 p
Age
21-40 years
19[22.3] 28[32.9] 0.01 0.92 9 [17.6] 19[37.2] 1.35 0.24 26 [51] 2 [3.9] Fishers 0.49
41-60 years
15[17.6] 23[27] 12 [23.5] 11[21.6] 23 [45] 0 [0]
Gender
Male 4[5.0] 13[15.3] 2.4 0.12 6 [11.8] 7[13.7] 0.01 0.92 9[17.6] 4 [7.8] 0.31 0.58
Female 30[35] 38[44.7] 15 [29.4] 23 [45.1] 21[41.2] 17 [33.3]
Classification
EN 7 [8.2] 13[15.3] 0.27 0.60 2 [3.9] 11[21.6] 0.36 0.55 2[3.9] 11 [21.6] 1.19 0.27
RN 27[31.8] 38[44.7] 11 [21.6] 27 [52.8] 14[27.4] 24 [47.0]
63
Table 4 Emergency Nurse Flagging Behaviour (including recency and frequency of Flagging) in Relation to Experience
Have you ever 'flagged'? Recency of flagging Frequency of flagging
Last week or More than At least More than
No Yes more recently
a week ago
monthly monthly
n[%] n[%] 2 p n [%] no[%] 2 p n [%] n [%] 2 p
Time in Classification
0 -5 years 22[25.9] 33[38.8] 0.00 1.0 19 [37.2] 14[27.4] 0.36 0.54 19[37.2] 14[27.4] 0.97 0.32
6 - > 10 years
12[14.1] 18[21.2] 8 [15.7] 10[19.6] 7 [13.7] 11[21.6]
Time in Emergency Field
0 -5 years 25[29.4] 31[36.5] 1.47 0.22 16 [31.4] 15[29.4] 0.56 0.81 19[37.2] 12[23.5] 0.73 0.39
6 - > 10 years
9[10.6] 20[23.5] 11 [21.6] 9 [17.6] 9 [17.6] 11[21.6]
Time in Current
location
0 -5 years 24[28.2] 35[41.2] 0.04 0.84 18 [35.3] 17[33.3] 0.04 0.83 22[43.1] 13[25.5] 1.39 0.24
> 6 years 10[11.8] 16[18.8] 7 [13.7] 9 [17.6] 6 [11.8] 10[19.6]
64
4.3.1 Emergency Nurse flagging behaviour relating to demographics
Table 3 summarizes the statistical outcomes for nurse „flagging‟ behaviour including
the recency and frequency of „flagging‟ for the demographic categories of age, gender
and nurse classification. Where the expected frequency in one or more cells is less than
five, Fishers exact probability test was used to generate a P value.
(i) Age
Categories of age were aggregated to give greater meaning to data collected from them.
Of the population who indicated „flagging‟, 28 nurses were aged 21-40 years, and 23
were aged 41-60 years. There was no difference in flagging behaviour between the two
age groups (2 = 0.00, P = 0.92). Similarly, there was no difference in recency and
frequency of „flagging‟ between the two age groups, (2 = 1.35, P = 0.24) for recency
and P = 0.49 for frequency from Fishers exact test.
(ii) Gender
Categories of receny and frequency were aggregated in order for greater meaning of
data collected from each category. While 13 males and 38 females indicated „flagging‟,
there was no difference in „flagging‟ behaviour and gender (2 = 2.4 and P = 0.12).
There was also no difference in recency and frequency of „flagging‟ between males and
females, (for recency 2 = 0.01, P = 0.92) and frequency (2 = 0.31, P = 0.58).
(iii) Current classification
While 13 Enrolled Nurses and 38 Registered Nurses indicated „flagging‟, no difference
is reported in „flagging‟ behaviour with 2 = 0.27 and P = 0.60. Similarly, there was no
difference in „flagging‟ behaviour and recency and frequency between classifications
with 2 = 0.36 and P = 0.55 for recency and 2 = 1.19 and P = 0.27 for frequency.
65
Table 4 summarizes the statistical outcomes for nurse „flagging‟ behaviour including
the recency and frequency of „flagging‟ for the categories of time in classification,
emergency field and current location. The majority of nurses indicated 0 – 5 years for
all of these categories.
(iv) Time in classification
There was no difference in time in current classification and „flagging‟ behaviour (2 =
0.0, P = 1.00). Similarly, there was no difference in recency (2 = 3.6, P = 0.54) and
frequency. Similarly, there was no difference in recency (2 = 3.6, P = 0.54) and
frequency (2 = 0.97, P = 0.32) and the two groups.
(v) Time in the emergency field
In addition, no difference existed in time in emergency field and „flagging‟ behaviour
(2 = 1.47, P = 0.22). Also, there was no difference in recency (2 = 0.56, P = 0.81) and
frequency (2 = 0.73 and P = 0.39) and „flagging‟ behaviour between groups.
(vi) Time in current location
Lastly, no difference is reported time in current location and „flagging‟ behaviour (2 =
0.04, P = 0.84). There was also no difference in recency of „flagging‟ (2 = 0.04, P =
0.83) and frequency of „flagging‟ (2 = 1.39, P = 0.24) between the two groups.
(vii) Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
From the study data collected no nurse participants were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander decent therefore no data was tabulated for this category.
66
(viii) Overseas trained
Similarly no meaningful data was tabulated for this category. Only four of the overseas
trained nurses working at the time of the study indicated „flagging‟. Due to the
significant difference in the observations, a Fisher‟s exact probability test was used to
generate a P value of 1.00.
4.3.2 Emergency Nurse flagging behaviour relating to work patterns and
qualifications
Table 5 summarizes the statistical outcomes for nurse „flagging‟ behaviour including
recency and frequency of „flagging‟ for the categories of shifts worked and highest
qualification. Contingency tables were utilized for data reported in two columns and
three rows.
(i) Shifts worked
From the „What shifts do you work?‟ item of the questionnaire, participants were asked
to tick only one box from each of the three categories below:
1. Full-time permanent / Part-time permanent / Casual;
2. All shifts / Day shifts only / Night shifts only;
3. Seven day roster / Monday – Friday / Weekends only.
In Table 2 these categories fell under the subheadings of „Work Status‟, „Shifts
Worked‟ and „Rostering‟. Table 5 summarises this data.
Chi-square value of 0.52 and probability of 0.47 is reported for the groups of shift
status, „full-time permanent‟, „part-time permanent and casual‟. There is no difference
67
between the three groups and „flagging‟ behaviour. Similarly, 2 = 0.32 and P = 0.57 for
„flagging‟ recency and 2 = 0.04 and P = 0.84 for „flagging‟ frequency which implies no
difference between these groups and „flagging‟ behaviour.
For the shifts worked, „all shifts‟, „day shifts only‟ and „night shifts only‟, a difference
between shifts worked and „flagging‟ behaviour does exist. A Fishers exact probability
statistical outcome of P = 0.02 was generated from the data. Nearly all of those nurses
who worked „nights only‟ „flagged‟ while almost none of the nurses who worked „days
only‟ „flagged‟. Almost two thirds of the nurses who worked „all shifts‟ did „flag‟.
However, there is no difference between recency with Fishers P value of 0.24, and
frequency with Fishers P = 0.17.
For the shifts worked, under the heading „rostering‟, Fishers P = 0.03 implying a
difference exists between „flagging‟ behaviour and rostering. No nurses who worked
„Monday to Friday‟ „flagged‟ while all nurses who worked „weekends only‟ „flagged‟.
More than half of the nurses who worked a „seven day‟ roster exhibited „flagging‟
behaviour. For these categories Fishers P values of 0.07 were generated for both
recency and frequency of „flagging‟ behaviour. There was no difference between the
two qualification categories and „flagging‟ behaviour (2 = 0.43 and P = 0.51).
Similarly, there was no difference between „flagging‟ behaviour and the two groups of
qualification with recency (2 = 0.61, P = 0.44) and frequency (2 = 1.00, P = 0.32).
68
Table 5 Flagging Behaviour/Participant Demographics including Shifts Worked and Qualifications
Have you ever 'flagged'? Recency of flagging
Frequency of flagging
Last week or
More than
At least
More t than
No Yes more recently
a week ago
monthly monthly
n [%] n[%] 2 p n[%] n [ %] 2 p n [%] n [%] 2 p
Shifts Worked
Full-time permanent 12[14.1] 22[25.9] 0.52 0.47 23[27.4] 13[15.7] 0.32 0.57 17[19.6] 20[23.5] 0.04 0.84
Part-time permanent 22[25.9] 29[34.1] 25[29.4] 23[27.4] 23[27.4] 25[29.4]
and Casual
All Shifts 26[30.6] 42[49.4] Contingency 30[35.3] 3[3.5] Contingency 28[33.3] 42[49.4] Contingency
Day Shifts Only 6[7.0] 1[1.2] 2cv=12.6 0.0[0] 1[1.2] 2cv=2.67 0[0.] 1[1.2] 2cv=2.02
Night Shifts Only 1[1.2] 8[9.4] =0.1 8[9.8] 5[5.9] =0.1 8[9.8] 5[5.9] =0.1
Seven Day Roster 31[36.5] 48[56.5] Contingency 37[43.5] 43[50.6] Contingency 35[41.2] 45[52.9] Contingency
Monday - Friday Only 3[3.5] 0[0.0] 2cv=6.6 0[0.0] 0[0.0] 2cv=0.18 0[0.0] 0[0.0] 2cv=2.13
Weekends Only 0[0.0] 3[3.5] =0.1 0[0.0] 5[5.9] =0.1 0[0.0] 5[5.9] =0.1
Highest Qualification
Entry Level 20[23.5] 35[41.2] 0.43 0.51 23[27.4] 35[41.2] 0.61 0.44 25[29.4] 33[89.8] 1.0
Specialized 14[16.5] 16[18.8] 15[17.6] 12[14.]1 17[19.6] 10[11.8] 0.32
69
4.4 Section A2 ‘Flagging’
Forty per cent of the sample population indicated not „flagging‟ and half of those nurses did
not „flag‟ because they didn‟t know how to. Table 6 below summarizes the reasons for not
„flagging‟. Most of the reasons given for not „flagging‟ were to do with a lack of
knowledge/awareness regarding the „flagging‟ process.
Table 6 Emergency Nurse Reasons for Not Flagging
If you have NEVER flagged a patient in the ED, why not? Number
of responses
% (n=34)
1. Unaware of flagging process 6 17.6
2. Too busy to flag 1 2.9
3. Don't know how to flag 17 50
4. Uncertain of flagging process 7 20.6
5. Have not experienced an incident serious enough to flag 1 2.9
6. Too many incidents to flag 0 0
7. I am not senior enough to flag 1 2.9
8. The patient is not responsible for actions 0 0
9. Fear of managerial retaliation post flagging 0 0
10. Perpetrator was provoked by staff 1 2.9
11. Too distressed to flag post incident 0 0
12. Patient is aiming aggression at the hospital, not me 0 0
13. The patient has been flagged previously 0 0
14. The patient's presentation is legitimate 0 0
Total 34 100
70
4.5 Section B: Patient-related Factors
Table 7 below summarizes the five patient behaviours that were most commonly EVER,
ALWAYS and NEVER „flagged‟. „Threat to harm‟ and „Aggressive statements‟ were most
„flagged‟ by nurses. Very close to no nurses would never „flag‟ these patient behaviours.
Patient behaviours like „Walking back and forth to the nurses‟ station‟, and „Walking around
confined areas‟ were more tolerated and hardly „flagged‟ at all.
Table 7 Patient-related Factors Ever, Always and Never Flagged
Patient Behaviour EVER Flagged
ALWAYS Flag
NEVER Flag
n= 51 (%)
n= 85 (%)
n =85 (%)
Threat to harm 95.3 87.0 1.0
Aggressive statements
100.0 86.0 1.0
Intimidation 82.4 80.0 6.0
Yelling 84.3 63.5 9.0
Belligerence 51.0 52.0 19.0
The following graph in Figure 1 below demonstrates the frequency of patient behaviours
ever, always, never and most likely „flagged‟ by emergency nurses. All 17 patient
behaviours were ever „flagged‟ even if only by at least a couple of participants. Half of the
nurses who ever „flagged‟ indicated „flagging‟ the two patient behaviours „threat to harm‟
and „aggressive statements/threats‟. Other behaviours unlikely to be tolerated by nurses, and
71
therefore „flagged‟, although to a lesser extent, were „intimidation‟ and „yelling‟. Patient
behaviours never „flagged‟ the most were „walking back and forth to the nurses‟ station‟
(56%), „irritability‟ (53%), „walking around confined areas‟ (52%) and „increase in volume
(speech)‟ (50%). From the graph it is obvious that a difference exists between patient
behaviours which are tolerated and not tolerated amongst nurses. It is also evident that a
relationship exists between the patient behaviours „threat to harm‟ and „aggressive
statements/threats‟ amongst the categories „always flag‟ and „most likely to flag‟ indicating
that given those nurses who don‟t „flag‟, (mostly due to a lack of knowledge of the „flagging‟
process), they would certainly be most likely to „flag‟ the same behaviours as those that do
„flag‟. The patient behaviours that were never „flagged‟ are various ranging widely between
all 17 behaviours. This is indicative of acceptance of these behaviours to varying degrees
amongst emergency nurses and that these behaviours are experienced regularly in the
workplace.
In addition to the patient behaviours listed in the questionnaire and represented in the graph
in Figure 1, participants elaborated on patient behaviours most likely to be „flagged‟ in the
free text item of the questionnaire. Major patient behaviours are, „actual physical assault‟,
„carrying of weapons‟, „code blacks‟ and „Police/Star Force involvement‟. These behaviours
were not listed in the questionnaire tool. These behaviours are also more extreme than those
behaviours in the questionnaire based on the cues from the studies done by Luck et al 2007
and Wilkes et al 2010. This may indicate that nurses are exposed to other more acute
experiences of violence. (Examples of participant responses can be found in Appendix 14:
Participant Free Text Responses to Item B1.2). All nurses across all focus groups expressed
with concern some degree of experience of or exposure to physical violence while at work.
73
4.6 Section C: Nurse Attitudes, Practice and Knowledge of ‘Flagging’ in the ED
In section C of the questionnaire participants were invited to place their responses in
order of preference on a Likert-Scale numbering 1 to 5 where 1 is assigned to strongly
disagree and 5 to strongly agree. Items C1.1 to C1.5 pertained to nurse attitudes towards
„flagging‟. Table 8 summarizes this data. The majority of nurses (70.6%) strongly
agreed to „flagging‟ patients who direct violence at them personally while half as many
strongly agreed to „flagging‟ patients who direct violence at the hospital system.
Similarly, roughly half the nurses also indicated strongly agreeing to „flagging‟ patients
who may not be responsible for their violent behaviour due to illness. From the focus
group interviews this was further elaborated upon with some nurses stating that “the
patient may have a urinary tract infection and therefore be confused” or the patient may
be “post-ictal” and therefore not warranting a „flag‟. However, violent presentations
involving self-induced symptoms such as “intoxication”, “substance abuse” and
“detainment in the community” were more likely to be „flagged‟.
74
Table 8 Emergency Nurse Attitudes to Flagging
Nurse attitudes towards flagging strongly disagree
disagree neither agree strongly
agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
C1.1 Patients who direct violence 0 0 4 21 60
at me should always be flagged. (0%) (0%) (4.7%) (24.7%) (70.6%)
C1.2 Patients who direct violence at the 2 3 9 34 37
hospital system should always be flagged. (2.3%) (3.5%) (10.6%) (40.0%) (43.5%)
C1.3 Violent patients who may not be 3 4 17 28 33
responsible for their behaviour due to (3.5%) (4.7%) (20.0%) (33.0%) (38.8%)
illness should always be flagged.
C1.4 Violent patients whose illness 1 3 9 38 32
affects their self-control should always (1.2%) (3.5%) (10.6%) (44.7%) (37.6%)
be flagged.
C1.5 I am more likely to flag a patient if I view their presentation as unwarranted
15 11 32 18 9
or inappropriate. (17.6%) (12.9%) (37.6%) (12.2%) (10.6%)
Items C1.6 to C1.10 pertained to nurse practices of „flagging‟. These practices are
summarized in Table 9. Of the population (n=85) the majority of nurses strongly
indicated „flagging‟ to protect their colleagues and equip nurses against violence.
However, hardly any consensus existed amongst nurses as to whether they feel safer in
the ED because of „flagging‟
75
Table 9 Emergency Nurse Practices of Flagging
Nurse practices of flagging strongly disagree
disagree neither agree strongly
agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
C1.6 I flag to help reduce the trajectory of 3 3 27 17 35
violence in the ED. (3.5%) (3.5%) (31.7%) (20.0%) (41.2%)
C1.7 I flag to help protect my work 0 0 25 14 46
colleagues. (0%) (0%) (29.4%) (16.4%) (54.0%)
C1.8 I flag to equip ED nurses against 0 0 27 16 42
violent patients. (0%) (0%) (31.7%) (18.8%) (49.4%)
C1.9 Flagging makes me feel safer in 9 12 22 22 20
the ED. (10.5%) (14.0%) (25.8%) (25.8%) (23.5%)
C1.10 I always observe violence alerts on 3 5 13 31 32
flagged patients before approaching them. (3.5%) (5.8%) (15.3%) (37.5%) (37.6%)
Table 10 summarizes nurse knowledge of „flagging‟ behaviour collected from items
C1.11 to C1.14. Of the population (n=85) nearly all nurses were unaware of a hospital
policy for „flagging‟. In spite of this vast unawareness, greater than 90% indicated their
reliance on the „flagging‟ system by indicating that they would never remove a „flag‟
from a patient.
76
Table 10 Emergency Nurse Knowledge of Flagging
Nurse knowledge of flagging yes no don't know
n (%) n (%) n (%)
C1.11 Is there a hospital policy 4 8 72
for flagging? (4.7%) (9.4%) (84.7%)
C1.12 Is there a process for 8 7 68
removing a flag from a patient? (9.4%) (8.2%) (80.0%)
C1.13 Have you ever removed 3 77 4
a flag from a patient? (3.5%) (90.5%) (4.7%)
C1.14 Would ever remove a 6 64 14
flag from a patient? (7.0%) (75.0%) (16.4%)
4.7 Section D Nurse Perception of Flagging in the ED
Items D1.1 to D1.6 pertained to nurse perception of „flagging‟ from the population
(n=85) of emergency nurses. Table 11 summarizes this data. Two items (D1.3 and
D1.5) encompassed a „no difference‟ option, whereas other items were „yes/no/don‟t
know‟ responses. Item D1.1 indicated that almost three quarters of nurses agreed that
„flagging‟ was a part of the nursing duty of care. However, only a third indicated using
the IF18 Violence incident report form following a violent incident. A total of 10 nurses
commented on why they didn‟t use this form in the free text section. Seven of these
respondents reported that they were unaware of this form; two nurses stated that they
were too distressed to use it and one nurse implied that there was no benefit to using the
form. Item D1.5 revealed that almost all nurses (91.8%) perceived that information on
Mental Health patients should be linked to EDIS. Item D1.6 was an open ended
question. In response to this item, seven nurses indicated that previously placed „flags‟
77
on patients made no difference to nursing care interventions although they admitted to
becoming hyper-vigilant around the „flagged‟ patient for fear of harm. This was
evidenced as a protective measure against nurse „burnout‟ in the focus group interviews.
The majority of participants commented on becoming more cautious around previously
„flagged‟ patients and expressed becoming “suspicious of the intent of these patients.”
Some nurses admitted to “asking another nurse to accompany” them on first approach
or “arranging for security to be close by.” Several respondents interpreted previously
placed „flags‟ on patients as triggers for interacting less with these patients and
expressed being “fearful of getting hurt by them” and “withdrawing due to increased
fear.” This was further elaborated on in the focus group interviews which revealed that
workplace violence had become a substantial source of increased stress levels and that
nurses had to deal with this in some manner. Descriptions of attempts to avoid such
incidents are reported under the sub-categories of major themes „emotional trauma‟,
„increased stress levels‟ and „self-protection‟.
A general consensus was evident among all participants that the practice of observing
previously placed „flags‟ was a definite means of risk management. Without violence
alerts violent patients were said to have “an advantage over us.” „Flags‟ are used by the
majority of nurses every day to “get a good idea of the background” of the patient as it
“makes me more cautious.”
78
Table 11 Emergency Nurse Perception of Flagging
Nurse perception of flagging in the ED yes no
no difference
don't know
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
D1.1 Is flagging a part of the nursing 56 5 N/A 24
duty of care? (65.9%) (5.9%) N/A (28.2%)
D1.2 Do you agree that violence flags 2 59 N/A 24
already placed on patients should ever (2.3%) (69.4%) N/A (28.2%)
be removed?
D1.3 Does experience gained with 5 4 42 34
exposure to violence cause you to flag (5.9%) (4.7%) (49.4%) (40.0%)
less or more?
D1.4 Have you ever used an aggression 33 50 N/A N/A
violence report form IF18 to report a (38.8%) (58.9%) N/A N/A
violent incident in which you have been
involved?
D1.5 Do you feel that patient information 78 0 1 6
regarding violent history known by the ED (91.8%) (0.0%) (1.2%) (7.0%)
Mental Health team should be linked to the
EDIS, (flagging) system?
However, all nurses agreed that „flagging‟ was “not the answer to the problem of
violence.” and agreed that “We shouldn't have to be exposed to it or threatened.”
„Flagging‟ was useful in making nurses “aware of potential for danger” but, “it doesn't
prevent its existence in ED.” „Zero tolerance to violence‟ in ED was thought of as an
anomaly and a profound source of frustration leaving nurses feeling “sceptical about
efforts made to protect nurses.” This was clearly expressed by one nurse who wrote,
“Zero tolerance doesn't equal the daily experience of violence.” Further expression of
this issue later developed into the major theme “Risk management of violence‟ in the
thematic analysis.
79
4.8 Analysis of Focus Group Interviews
Thematic analysis
During the focus group interviews there were five open-ended questions posed to each
participant. These questions sought information about why nurses „flag‟ violent patients
in the ED. All of the participants appeared relaxed at the start of the interviews and were
enthusiastic to answer all of the questions. Some of the responses led to in-depth
emotionally charged discussions between participants. All discussions were tabulated
verbatim in Appendix 15. Thematic analysis enabled reporting of participant
experiences offered during the interviews. After reading the transcripts many times over
and becoming familiar with the contents, themes and patterns were identified which
yielded comprehensive awareness of the collective experience of interviewees. Emerged
themes gave deeper insight to the questionnaire items. The following discussion
provides a thematic description of the data collected which related to why nurses „flag‟
violent patients. A total of 158 statements/phrases were digitally recorded during the
interviews in which the following five questions were asked:
1. How effective do you think security is in the emergency department against
violent patients?
2. Do you feel that toleration to violence is an expected part of your job?
3. Are you equipped to deal with violence at work?
4. Does experience of and exposure to workplace violence impact on you
personally?
5. Are you supported by management in relation to workplace violence?
80
All statements were scribed, examined and grouped together forming nine sub-
categories. These sub-categories were compiled into three major themes which revolved
around emergency nurse experience of workplace violence. These identified areas
assisted with the discussion in chapter five. (See Figure 2 below: Flow Chart of Major
Themes Stemming from Experience of Workplace Violence). The nine sub-categories
and associated significant statements/phrases are described below.
4.8.1 Major Theme: Impact of Violence
This theme is composed of the following five categories:
(i) Physical Harm
According to the SA Health Prevention and Management of Workplace Violence and
Aggression Guidelines (2009), the definition for physical violence is: „The use of
physical force against another person or group that results in physical harm‟. Experience
of physical violence was not an uncommon occurrence in the ED for interviewees
across all groups. Physical violence was either personal or witnessed. Some nurses
relayed memories of colleagues who suffered inability to work in the ED as a result of
these incidents. Nurse [a] from Group 1 stated: “Nurses are the first point of contact and
get hit the most.” and nurse [c] from Group 3 stated, “Nurses are caring people and
therefore soft targets.” Nurse [d] from Group 1 conveyed the following statement; “I
got bitten once while defending myself from a patient with a knife.” Physical violence
was described as inescapable. Nurse [e] from Group 2 raised the question: “SAAS
[South Australian Ambulance Service] doesn‟t even get out of the ambulance if they are
called to a violent situation. Why do nurses have to put themselves in harm‟s way?”
81
(ii) Emotional Trauma
All nurses agreed that workplace violence was becoming a routine occurrence and that
because of this many suffered affects such as sleep deprivation, increased stress levels,
and long/far ranging effects on their personal, family and social lives. Nurse [f] from
Group 2 stated: “Violence makes a massive impact on stress levels. Some nurses have
serious ongoing problems because of it. There‟s no doubt that it affects all our staff.”
Examples of this are given by nurse [k] from Group 3 who stated: “I am still affected by
a siege which took place eighteen months ago.” and nurse [f] from Group 2 who said: “I
had a sawn off shotgun pulled at me at triage. That affected my career and me.” Group 3
nurses [i] and [k] added: “It affects you in the end and it keeps affecting you and it
keeps affecting everyone around you. It just doesn‟t affect you here, it affects home as
well. You want it to stop.” and “You can‟t get it out of your mind. You internalize it and
deal with it anyway you can.” The effects of work-related stress, originating from
violence, were conveyed by nurse [g] from Group 2 who stated with remorse: “I know a
nurse who used to work here and she used to be a clever, clever girl. But now she is a
mental health patient. It‟s a real shame.”
(iii) Low moral
All nurses found difficulty in sustaining a good work ethic whilst confronted by violent
patients and stated that they suffered various levels of depression and hopelessness post
incidents involving physical and verbal violence. Some stated that these episodes threw
them “off balance” and induced low levels of self-confidence and confusion while
performing nursing duties. For example, nurse [h] from Group 2 stated: “You try to do
the best you can to assist people because you‟re a nurse, but then you get treated worse
than a dog in return and wonder why you bother.” Nurse [c] from Group 1 asked: “How
82
Major Theme:
Self-
protection
from Violence
Major Theme:
Risk
Management
of Violence
Major Theme:
Impact of
Violence
Workplace
Violence
are you supposed to feel when you‟re being told that someone is going to kill you and
they‟ve got a loaded gun? He knew my name, he knew where I worked and he had a
loaded gun. I didn‟t exactly feel confident after that.”
Figure 2 Flow Chart of Major Themes stemming from the experience of Workplace Violence
83
(iv) Increased Stress Levels
All participants expressed that workplace violence simply intensified existing stress
levels existing from daily departmental overcrowding and under-resourcing. This was
evidenced by such statements as: “Violence increases stress levels – end of story.” by
nurse [g] from Group 2 and “I‟m getting really sick of violence.” (nurse [h] Group2)
and “I used to be normal” nurse [c] Group 1.
This was best described by the interviewee [f] in Group 2:
I think our society is a lot more egocentric and nurses have lost
respect. More aggression and violence is used as a tool to get
what you want on a daily basis. Our resources are further and
further stretched too and we‟re less and less able to meet
people‟s needs. As we get busier and busier, we are more likely
to experience escalating behaviour which means we are
constantly under stress. This sort of environment is not
sustainable.
(v) Burnout
Interviewees across all groups unanimously conceded to feeling “weary” regarding
contending with violent patients and likened the work environment to a “war zone”.
Nurse [g] from Group 2 stated: “Funnily enough, I didn‟t think I would be working in a
combat zone.” Concern was expressed by nurse [d] in Group 1 who described nursing in
the ED by stating:
84
Nursing is changing. You go to a course to learn how to give
medications. You don‟t think you go to a course to learn how to
defend yourself. Part of the nursing uniform should be a stun gun
or Taser. Before I came into nursing I didn‟t think I would need
to source solutions for protection and survival from violence. I
guess it was naïve of me and I realize that I need to develop
coping mechanisms but most days I am stretched to the limit and
go home absolutely frazzled.
4.8.2 Major Theme: Risk Management of Violence
This theme is composed of the following three categories:
(i) Violence Unaddressed
All groups held an unprecedented belief that violence in the ED was ignored by
management and felt insulted and unsupported by unevaluated efforts made to address it
despite its escalation. All nurses agreed that they felt they should “shut up and put up”
with violent patients and take personal responsibility for safety. Nurse [f] in Group 2
stated:
The only choice that the emergency nurse has, real choice, is to
either stay or go. That‟s the only effective way of stopping the
violence. The only way to make it really happen is to leave.
Under the OH&S Act, we are expected to make sure we don‟t put
ourselves in danger and, unfortunately, emergency culture is
such that we do.
85
The true extent of violence was believed to be “unmonitored” by management and not
enough was being done even though staff “have a right to a safe work place” and
“management have a duty of care to provide it”. The issue of the reality of feeling
“forced to accept violence” contradicting the written policy “zero tolerance to violence”
was continuously expressed across all groups. All nurses agreed to an expectation to
accept “bad behaviour”. Nurse [g] in Group 2 stated: “I am made to feel incompetent of
carrying out my duties if I don‟t accept violence.” This was well described by one nurse
[d] in Group 1:
Why do we have the „no tolerance to violence‟ signs? We should
have the right to call Police and have a patient removed without
discussing the situation. As far as I‟m concerned, if you feel you
are threatened enough that you need to call the Police, you
shouldn‟t have to go through the Flow Coordinator or the Duty
Nurse Coordinator or security. You should be able to make the
decision and be supported. If every time it happened, the Police
were called, and it wasn‟t tolerated, it would show that we don‟t
tolerate it. Instead we promote this behaviour.
(ii) Security
All interviewees expressed various levels of dissatisfaction of measures such as security
guards and previously implemented duress pendants to address violence. Nurse [j] from
Group 3 stated: “Security guards don‟t change anything because people don‟t respect
them because they have no power and if we had a Police Officer sitting in the ED,
maybe people might think twice.” Concerns were unanimously raised about the length
of time taken for security to arrive when required. Nurse [c] in Group 1, describing a
86
violent incident, stated that: “After the four calls a response was initiated, but it took a
good five minutes and by then everyone could have been dead.” All agreed to a need for
“security guards based in the ED because this is where the escalations of violence
always happen.” Duress pendants were described as “useless” in the prevention of
violence and looked upon as “…a button to say I‟m in trouble, while actually accepting
the fact that we‟re going to be in trouble.” Nurse [j] from Group 3 reported that “It‟s an
acceptance of the fact that the problem is escalating.”
(iii) Lack of Support
Lack of education/training, debriefing sessions, feedback from incident reports, and
“belittling” during incidents by managerial members served to “compound” feelings of
“vulnerability” amongst all participants. A concern of “having nowhere to turn” was
evident amongst the majority of participants. Nurse [d] from Group1 expressed this by
describing the following incident:
One patient snapped at 06:58 hours and the situation got out of
control and he barricaded himself in the cubicle. He threw
everything he could at us. He threatened us with hands full of
syringes and said, „The next one that comes through the door is
going get stabbed‟. The Duty Nurse Coordinator goes, We‟ve got
to see that he‟s ok. Let‟s open the door. I said, Are you for real?
While he‟s screaming and punching holes in the walls he‟s fine.
You‟re going to put us at risk to open the door to see he‟s alright.
We ended up getting Star force in. Nobody was debriefed on that
shift.
87
Other participants made statements such as: “When you get hurt, there‟s no back-up, no
support.” and “There‟s no follow-up to how we‟re feeling emotionally.” Besides
„flagging‟, a small number of nurses indicated submitted IF18 – Aggression and
Violence Incident Report Forms after experiencing extreme violence despite feeling
“sceptical” about the benefit of this. Nurse [f] from Group 2 described an experience of
submitting these forms by stating:
I know of one person who was called into the office and all their
IF18 forms had been collected and they were made to justify
their reports of violence. After that I haven‟t put one in because
you think, Is this meant to be information that they collect to see
how at risk we are or is this evidence against me?
In addition to this nurse [h] from the same group stated:
You see your colleagues who have experienced a violent episode
and have gone up to stick up for themselves and you see the
repercussions and how weren‟t supported and it makes you
think…Well, why should I stick up for myself if it‟s going to make
it worse for me and nothing‟s going to change? Then you think,
well if you‟re asking management for support and it turns
around and becomes YOU should have done this or YOU should
have done that then what‟s the point? We shouldn‟t have been in
a violent situation in the first place and it shouldn‟t have to turn
around to be our problem or fault. It‟s not our fault.
88
Feelings of “betrayal” from management “mind-boggled” participants and “infuriated”
others as nurses believed that “You shouldn‟t have to feel that our registrations will be
taken away if we can‟t develop resilience to violence. We shouldn‟t have to feel like our
safety and health is not being looked after.” (Nurse [a] Group 1). On closer
examination, the issue of violence was found to always be unaddressed – even from the
day of job interview. One participant recalled: “I think everyone has some
understanding that ED can be a scary place but no one at any stage during interview sits
down and asks you if you are aware that violence incidents in the ED that may require
intervention due to extreme duress occur. You‟re just not told that.” (Nurse [f] Group
2). Apart from this, all participants conceded that they felt “unequipped‟, “unprepared”,
“untrained” to “act in violent situations” at work. Without “unity”, “protocol” or
“support”, it was difficult to formulate a notion of “rights” for the nurse. In fact all
participants felt that they had “no rights”. Nurse [j] from Group 3 stated: “I think that
there are people higher up [management] who think that the rights of the patient are
more important than the rights of the nurse”.
4.8.3 Major Theme: Self-Protection from Violence
This theme is composed of the following two categories:
(i) Violence: a part of the job
All interviewees across all groups agreed to violence being “a part of the job”, even
though it “shouldn‟t be accepted”. Most participants were resigned to accepting that it
was only “a matter of time” before violence would “take its toll” and at that stage their
emergency nursing career would cease. Nurse [d] from Group 1 stated:
89
Every day that we‟re here is a bonus day because the minute
something happens to me which jeopardizes my safety or mental
stability, the job goes. I am not committed to emergency nursing
to the point where I will jeopardise myself or anyone else just to
help these people who treat you like crap.
(ii) Self-defence
All participants indicated that to stay in the field of emergency nursing, measures of
self-protection were necessary since “It‟s not a good feeling that management is not
going to be behind you in those situations and that you have to protect yourself and your
colleagues.” (Nurse [e] Group 2). Nurses felt they were forced to be “self-resourceful”
and “increase resilience” and “coping mechanisms” to remain in the emergency field.
Nurse [l] from Group 3 stated: “You go into a protective state because you know that
it‟s not going to change. You take measures to protect yourself.” In order to do this,
some participants eluded to “backing off” from nursing care. Nurse [c] from Group 1
commented: “We are justified in exhibiting marginalized care to patients exhibiting
violent behaviour. What else are you going to do? We‟re human.” Additionally, nurse
[b] in Group 1 stated: “I will say to a Doctor, I will not be treating this patient. I am not
going to be smacked in the face, or pushed or shoved anymore.” Levels of exasperation
rose as participants raised the issue of “being brought to justice” if they were to
“physically assault an individual in public” while at work “a violent patient gets off
Scott-free after assaulting a nurse”. This was best described by nurse [c] in Group 1
who stated: “There is no safety. There is no Police Officer standing at the door saying
you are under arrest. There is no consequence for violent actions against us.”
90
4.9 Conclusion
Both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques contributed to the data
reviewed in this chapter. The various data sources were analysed separately.
Demographic data from the study questionnaire revealed that the participants were
incomparable in age, gender, career experience and „flagging‟ behaviour. However, a
statistical significance was reported between „flagging‟ behaviour and „shifts worked‟
with nurses who work „day shifts only‟ and „Monday to Friday‟ „flagging‟ significantly
less. Most nurses that didn‟t „flag‟ didn‟t have an awareness of the „flagging‟ process
and the majority of all nurses did not have an awareness of a hospital policy for
„flagging‟. However, „flagging‟ was reported to be a main source of mediation for
danger between nurses and violent patients and relied on heavily for this. „Flagging‟
was perceived as a fundamental duty of care by most nurses for protection from harm.
All of the qualitative data threw light on the phenomenon of why nurses „flag‟
emergency patients. Not only was violence portrayed as an issue experienced by all
nurses in this study, but types of violence were described as becoming more extreme. In
light of this, emergency nurses were left to fend for themselves and did so by averting
violent patients who they identified and „flagged‟. However, past history of violence of
those patients perceived as having the most potential for violence, (Mental Health
patients), was not relayed to nurses who have most interaction with them. Nurses
reported no departmental establishment for the relaying of this vital information. All
emergency nurses reported suffering ongoing various degrees of violence-related stress
effects and a consensus of vulnerability was exposed. Despite heavy reliance on
„flagging‟, „flagging‟ made little difference to nurses feeling safe at work. This
vulnerability was compounded by evidence of expressed scepticism due to an attitude of
91
non-awareness of the extent of workplace violence by management. Most nurses
believed that law enforcement would assist with prevention of harm from violence
thereby giving relief.
92
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
“This fellow came into triage swearing and carrying on because he had missed his
depot injection by a week and made it our problem. I told him that he needed to go to
Northern ACIS to get it sorted. He bashed on the glass triage window and carried on.
He was told that he needed to calm down or we wouldn‟t help him. We tried to get
information out of him regarding his issue. This guy just cracked it and pushed his fist
three or four times at the glass as hard as he could and was told, Sorry, you can leave.
We‟re not accepting that behaviour at all. A code black was called because he had
kicked in both of the sliding doors and broke the glass on one of them. The Duty Nurse
Coordinator spoke to us before she went out to the code black and asked us what had
happened. In the end she convinced him that he could come back in and be treated. We
got made to look like dickheads. We were trying to reinforce the zero tolerance sign in
view but she reinforced his bad behaviour instead. She basically made us look like
idiots.” (Nurse [b] Group 1 of the focus group interviews).
5.1 Restatement of the Problem
Although it is well documented that nurses are at risk of violence in the ED, little data is
being generated about how to improve this situation (Di Martino 2003; International
Council of Nurses 2002; McPhaul & Lipscomb 2004). Violence is now widely
considered as part of the emergency nursing job (Deans 2003; Ferns 2005a; Munro
93
2002). Consequently, emergency nurses are at high risk for assault and are regular
targets for attack. Although the workplace should be free of violent threats and acts, the
majority of nurses do not feel safe at work and are becoming increasingly concerned by
the perceived lack of managerial support and proactive input for addressing this acute
problem (Holmes 2006; Keely 2002; ICN 2009). The bulk of emergency nurses believe
their concerns are being ignored by administrators and implemented policies are
unrelated to their experienced reality (Ferns & Chojnacka 2005; Greco et al 2006;
Strockowski 2010). In fact, it is now recognised that in addition to this lack of support,
nurses are punished for retaliating against acts of violence or accused of instigating
them (Gacki-Smith et al 2009; ICN 2009). Although management is bound by legal and
ethical responsibilities to reduce staff hazards - (ANF Policy 2008) - it appears that this
is replaced by an administrative culture that refuses to acknowledge the true extent of
existing risks (Gacki-Smith et al 2009). Nurses feel that they are left to their own
devices for protection in order to survive and have therefore developed a culture of their
own comprising peripheral care and/or marginalization of violent patients (Aleandri &
Sansoni 2006; Chapman & Styles 2006; Di Martino 2003; Merfield 2003). Since the
researcher was concerned for the health care response to violent patients, and outcomes
for injuries sustained during acts of interpersonal violence for this population, as well as
the influence nurse exposure to acts of violence may have on nurses and their nursing
care delivery, two issues were of main interest to this study: factors affecting nurse
reporting of workplace violence in ED, and their perspectives of the impact of
workplace violence on nursing performance. Therefore the statement for the research
question became; „Factors exist which influence emergency nurses to electronically
chart violence alerts on emergency patients‟. The following research question was
formulated; „Why do nurses electronically chart violence alerts on, (or „flag‟),
94
emergency patients?‟ Additionally, a better understanding of nurse‟s knowledge,
attitudes and practices of „flagging‟ patients was addressed in this research.
5.2 Summary Description of Procedures
Since triggers for „flagging‟ were under scrutiny, variables such as nurse-related factors
and patient-related factors for „flagging‟, frequency and recency of „flagging‟, and nurse
attitude, practice, knowledge and perception of „flagging‟ were chosen as constructs for
the proposed survey. The literature review identified two findings of similar tools used
in studies on predictive cues for, and nurse assessment of potential patient-related
violence (Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007 & Wilkes et al 2010). The study tool was
developed from these two tools, piloted, evaluated and modified over a period of four
months.
Following revision of the original application both the University of Adelaide and
CNAHS Ethics Committees approved the study and survey in June 2011.
A mixed methods approach for this research was decided upon. Both quantitative and
qualitative data were collected from a self-reported, structured questionnaire and semi-
structured focus group interviews. Non-parametric statistics (Chi-square, contingency
tables) and thematic analysis of the focus group data were used.
95
5.3 Major Findings and Their Significance to Clinical Practice
As the first study of this hospital‟s emergency department‟s „flagging‟ process and why
emergency nurses „flag‟ emergency patients, this study provides significant
contributions to our understanding of emergency department violence. The study
showed that emergency department workplace violence is a highly prevalent issue
among nurses in this study. These findings stress the seriousness of this issue.
Of the 85 nurses who took part in the survey, 51 indicated „flagging‟ and 34 indicated
never „flagging‟. Most of the 34 who never „flagged‟, did not know how to or were
either uncertain or unaware of the „flagging‟ process. Additionally, Section C of the
questionnaire identified that 72 of the 85 nurses were unaware of a hospital policy for
„flagging‟.
Although the researcher conducted an investigation of hospital policy for the
management and regulation of workplace violence prior to the development of the
questionnaire, no formal policy could be found for the specific process of „flagging‟
violent patients. Both the hospital intranet site and questioning of technical, security,
educational and administrative staff did not produce specific means for retrieval of this
information. Despite the availability of the „flagging‟ process, its implementation was
not formally imparted or its use encouraged. Of those nurses who did indicate „flagging‟
most admitted to “picking it up on the job” from fellow colleagues rather than being
“formally educated prior to commencing employment in the ED”. This usually occurred
after witnessing the implementation of the „flagging‟ process prompted by a violent
96
incident taking place. Nurses who lacked knowledge of the „flagging‟ process may have
been placed at a reduced opportunity for self-protection from harm as they did not
recognise what the „flag‟ indicated. This reduced rate of „flagging‟ may not only have
enhanced danger, but reflected a false reality of the true context of the issue of ED
violence. This finding is supported by studies concerning barriers to nurse reporting and
measurement of violence in the ED (Ferns 2005a; Erickson & Williams-Evans 2000;
Gerberich et al 2004)
In addition to this no specific formal criteria could be obtained for the identifiable cues
nurses associated with „flagging‟ violent patients. This implied that the decision to
„flag‟ or not to „flag‟ was subjective on behalf of the nurse. This finding reflects
research which identifies the elusiveness of the nature of violence and the consequential
varied definitions and interpretations that constitute unreliability of reporting rates of
ED violence (Ferns 2005a; Luck, Jackson & Usher 2007; McPhaul & Lipscomb 2004).
The greatest „flaggers‟ were nurses who worked weekends only at 3/3, followed by
nurses who worked night shifts only at 7/8. This is most likely due to incidents of
violence occurring most often at night and on weekends when presentations involving
intoxication, substance abuse and interpersonal violence were increased. Administrative
staff, who don‟t work during these periods never or hardly ever „flagged‟.
Interestingly enough, all 17 patient behaviours/cues resulting from the study by Wilkes
et al (2010) were „flagged‟. The behaviours „threat to harm‟ and „aggressive
statements/threats‟ vastly out ranked all others and were also the most likely to be
97
„flagged‟. From the graph in Figure 1 it is also obvious that approximately half of the 17
patient-behaviours were well considered by participants to be tolerated as “low level
violence” and overlooked because of their day-to-day occurrence. Nurses admitted to
these behaviours being “inescapable” and therefore “part of the job”, or “normal”
despite policy which rejects tolerance to violence. This acceptance of violence in ED is
supportive of literature concerning toleration of violence in the ED by nurses and
relative to perceived risk of harm (Di Martino 2003, Gacki-Smith et al 2009).
No relationship existed between nurse demographics and „flagging‟ behaviour, because
all nurses that „flag‟, (regardless of their demographics), who work on the floor, feel the
need to use the „flagging‟ system as a means of protection from harm. The vast majority
of nurses strongly agreed to „flagging‟ patients who directed violence at them
personally. Even those who didn‟t „flag‟ indicated that they would most-likely „flag‟
these patient factors.
The findings from this study concerning violence in the ED are consistent with the
research literature involving nurses in other International emergency departments. The
qualitative findings from the focus group interviews further support the research
literature in that participants indicated three major issues concerning workplace
violence. These are discussed below.
98
(i) Impact of violence
Findings from literature reveal that ED nurses are the first point of contact with the
surrounding community occupants in times of need (Fernandez et al 1999; Mayhew &
Chappell 2003). These needs are acute, chronic, various, complex, multiple and
continuous. These nurses attempt to meet these needs with limited resources and as a
result, levels of irritation and frustration among patients are permanent varying only in
degrees (Crilly et al 2004; Fernandez et al 1999; May & Grubbs 2002). These findings
support the outcomes of this study in that violence against nurses in the emergency
department was not uncommon and that levels of violence erupted into anger during
which nurses became “soft targets for violent attack”. This was indicated in the focus
group interviews.
Literature indicates that emergency nurses are prone, through media portrayal, to
believe that the use of violence is an acceptable means of communicating and fulfilling
needs (Ferns & Chojnacka 2005). Many patients who present are victims and
perpetrators of violence within the cycle of violence and express violence as a normal
means of communication (Corum 2006; Day et al 2004; Indemaur 1999). In addition,
many patients are intoxicated, drug-affected, psychotic, suicidal and/or homicidal.
These conditions are prevalent in society and met by nurses with dismay at the doors of
emergency departments (Keely 2002; Kowalenko et al 2005). Findings from this study
reflect this literature as all participants across all focus groups expressed belief that
workplace violence was routine in the ED and involved violence induced by
“intoxication”, “substance abuse” and/or “Mental Health”. Ongoing experience of this
routine violence expressed by the participants was stated to be responsible for their
99
“sleep deprivation”, “increased stress levels” and “far ranging negative effects on the
personal, family and social lives”. Participants found difficulty with “unwinding” after
violent episodes at work. Some nurses reported taking “stress leave”, “seeking
counselling” and mentioned colleagues who had resigned as a result of experiencing
extreme and/or chronic workplace violence. All participants stated that they suffered
reduced “self-confidence”, “morale” and “work ethic” due to exposure to and
experience of routine violence. In addition, interviewees expressed bearing with degrees
of “vulnerability”, “depression”, “hopelessness”, “anxiety” and “burnout”. The majority
of participants in this study strongly agreed to a heavy reliance on „flagging‟ which was
perceived to reduce the trajectory of violence, protect their work colleagues and equip
themselves against violent patients.
(ii) Administrative and managerial responsibility
This study found that emergency nurses perceived that issues of workplace violence
were unaddressed by nursing management. They expressed bewilderment and concern
over extreme incidents, which were reported using the IF18 form, but not appearing to
be “followed up”, “evaluated” or “responded to”. Some nurses mentioned that they felt
“punished” or “belittled” for reporting violence and had to “justify their reports”. Most
nurses perceived reporting to be of “no benefit”. Participants believed that
“interrogation” from management about reports compounded their frustration and levels
of stress. They also reported feeling pressured when their individual levels of
“resilience”, “responsibility”, “resourcefulness”, “competence” and “coping
mechanisms” came “under scrutiny”. Participants were made to feel undervalued when
other staff supported and promoted bad behaviour exhibited by patients, (vindicating the
rights of the patient). These findings, as well as expectations of other staff to justify
100
claims of violence and getting hurt, are distinct barriers to reporting violence. This is
supported by a recent study by Gacki-Smith et al (2009) entitled „Violence against
nurses working in United States Emergency Departments‟. Despite established policy
guidelines for safety against violence in the ED, nurses believed that they were expected
to accept violence as “part of the job”. Participants accepted what they called „low level
violence‟ which amounted to name calling, slandering, glaring and staring, belligerence
and refusal of care. Some nurses accepted slapping, lunging and spitting within this
category of violence too. However, the expectation to accept levels of violence
involving actual physical assault, (especially with weapons such as knives, infected
syringes, firearms and fists), and SAPOL and Star force assistance was evidenced by
nurses. Nurse [k] from Group 3 supported this finding by her statement: “I am still
affected by a siege which took place eighteen months ago.” This was also supported by
nurse [d] from Group 1 who stated: “I was so scared by the patient‟s sudden
unpredictability that I nearly peed myself.” All emergency nurses were dissatisfied with
the supply of security personnel and most nurses believed that Police should be situated
within the department since they represent law enforcement and therefore presented a
better chance for violence prevention. Nurse [c] in Group 1 supported this finding with
the following statement: “Security guards don‟t change anything because people don‟t
respect them because they have no power and if we had a Police Officer sitting in the
ED, maybe people might think twice.” Duress pendants and security guards were of no
real benefit as response was too slow and these measures made no impact on incidents
occurring. Aggression and violence training implemented by management did not allay
fears of and vulnerability to workplace violence. The majority of nurses strongly agreed
to relying on observation of „flags‟ on patients before deciding to approach them.
101
(iii) Self-protection/remaining in the emergency field
This study found that a major source of concern for emergency nurses was the
perception of no foreseeable solution for protection from violence in the ED.
Participants resigned themselves to one day “burning out” or “getting injured” and that
every day before that occurred was a “bonus day”. In addition, with many nurses
coming and going, the dynamics of staff recruitment and retention only served to
“breakdown what remained of the cohesiveness of team morale” amongst the nursing
staff. The only perceived available means of survival from violence was the process of
„flagging‟. From the quantitative data, it is evident that most nurses (1) „flag‟ to protect
their colleagues from harm and (2) „flag‟ when violence is directed at them personally.
However, since „flagging‟ did not address violence in the ED it is no wonder that nurses
continued to feel unsafe and suffered the impacts of violence. Although all patient
behaviours from the two previous studies listed in the questionnaire, (Luck et al 2007;
Wilkes et al 2010), were „flagged‟, this study found that nurses were exposed to more
extreme experiences of violent patient behaviours such as “carrying of concealed
weapons” and “actual physical assault”.
Another finding from this study was the concern participants held regarding vital
information involving previous violent episodes by Mental Health patients not being
linked to HASS (Hospital Administration Software Service). Although HASS
accommodated the „flagging‟ process, this Mental Health violent patient information
was not linked and therefore not readily available to nurses. Therefore nurses could not
identify violent behaviour previously noted by other staff. Over 90% of nurses
102
perceived that this patient information mattered to their safety as these patients
accounted for the majority of code blacks in the department.
5.4 Study Limitations/Strengths
Limitations to this study were; a brief three week period for the study, (a larger sample
population may have been gained given more time), reduced rates of retention in the ED, (a
recent loss of 25 senior emergency nurses over the last 10 months had occurred which may
have impacted on outcomes), and the majority of participants were shift workers, (possibly
deterring the delivery of information sessions/questionnaires and return of questionnaires).
In addition to these limitations, the department was overcrowded most days during the
study period and nurses were therefore under extreme pressure and possibly too busy to find
sufficient time to respond thoughtfully and/or accurately to items. Additional limitations
may have resulted in terms of the questionnaire design and formatting as well as selection
of focus group questions.
Strengths of this study were a good response rate (over 60%). Respondents were
interested in the subject material. Due to the use of a mixed methods approach a large
amount of qualitative participation occurred with numerous nurses being excited about
the prospect of participating in and contributing to the focus group interviews. The
study was well supported by divisional management.
103
5.5 Recommendations for Further Investigation
The results from this study have important implications for the development of
strategies to reduce ED violence. New and innovative changes are needed to address
concerns that emergency nurses harbour concerning violence in the ED. Failure to
address these concerns serves to enhance danger. This study has shown that nurses
„flag‟ to keep themselves from harm and because „flagging‟ is a readily accessible
means of reporting violent patients who cause harm. Despite the availability of the
„flagging‟ process, „flagging‟ is not an established means of prevention of violence or a
deterrent from violence or a solution to violence. „Flagging‟ is a means by which nurses
alert themselves and each other to cues for potential violence which have been
identified. These „flags‟ make nurses hyper-vigilant when approaching „flagged‟
patients and give them cause to withdraw rapidly at the first sign of escalation of violent
behaviour. „Flagging‟ is a warning that potential for violence exists. It does not allay
fears or feelings of vulnerability amongst nurses to violence. In fact, it can be said that
„flags‟ put nurses on guard in preparation for conflict resulting in increased states of
nurse stress and patient marginalization. Therefore, more research needs to be
accomplished in order to establish if there are better tools than „flagging‟ or other better
methods of addressing ED violence. Reasons for violence existing in the ED and how it
can be prevented require ongoing investigation to assure nurses that they are protected
and safe while at work. It should not have to get to the stage where a nurse or anyone in
the ED suffers lifelong debilitation or loses their life as a result of workplace violence
stemming from unaddressed nursing concerns. The following associated
recommendations are made;
104
Nurse managers/administrators accept reports of nurse experience of and
exposure to workplace violence to increase feelings of support and value among
nurses and increase opportunities to debrief.
Regular evaluation and feedback of nurse reports of violence to nursing staff
from nurse management are made to keep communication paths open and
realities of violence issues known.
Development of training programs for nurses for the use of the „flagging‟ of
violent patient process and the identification of cues for potential for violence.
Establishment and distribution of policy for the „flagging‟ of violent patients.
Creation of a link between knowledge of violent background of Mental Health
patients and the „flagging‟ process.
Consider the introduction of Police Officers within the emergency department to
uphold the law and improve feelings of safety for nurses and patients.
5.6 Conclusion
This study has revealed that 40% of the nursing participants in the study setting don‟t
„flag‟ and that most nurses, (whether they „flag‟ or not), had not cited a hospital policy
for „flagging‟. A specific criteria guiding recognition of patient-related cues for
identifying the need for „flagging‟ was not obtainable. In addition to this, formal
education was not received by staff members in relation to the „flagging‟ process or
reasons or benefits for „flagging‟.
105
„Flagging‟ may have been considered as a means of monitoring violence and
maintaining safety in the ED and therefore useful, but it was merely a warning
concerning the presence of violence in the ED and not a solution to violence.
Emergency nurses „flag‟ emergency patients in an effort to protect themselves and their
colleagues from harm from violent attack but „flagging‟ did not prevent the existence of
violence in the emergency department. Emergency departments are therefore unsafe
places in which to work despite the „flagging‟ process and reasons why nurses „flag‟
emergency patients.
Ongoing research into the use of tools for the identification of patient-related factors
concerning violence may assist to yield other perspectives of similar processes of
„flagging‟ and their outcomes. The recommendations implicate organisational level
changes for increased safety for emergency nurses. These recommendations are
generated by this study and thus considered to be important steps in the response to
workplace violence.
However, it is more than obvious from this study, that reliance on the process of
„flagging‟ for the protection of nurses against violent attack from emergency patients is
unsafe. It is also obvious that since „flagging‟ does not prevent the existence of violence
in the emergency department that emergency nurses are exposed to the accumulative
day-to-day negative physical and psycho-social effects of violence. Since „flagging‟ has
little impact on the existence of violence in the ED, or the reduction of risk of harm
from violence, future consideration of information yielded concerning the use of the
„flagging‟ process and reasons why nurses „flag‟ may be beneficial for the prevention of
violence in the workplace.
106
Since the need to „flag‟ emergency patients is loud and clear, it is at least obvious that
violence in the emergency department is an issue that needs to be addressed. The
question; „what is being done about why nurses are flagging emergency patients?‟ is
now generated.
Since nurses „flag‟ emergency patients to 1) declare danger and 2) attempt to prevent
harm, and since international efforts are currently being made to address the same issues
of violence in relation to „flagging‟, perhaps consideration could be given to the
introduction of policy which assists the protection of nurses by embracing legislation
which introduces assault of a nurse as a felony. Perhaps a worthwhile response to the
need and reasons for nurses „flagging‟ emergency patients is the consideration of the
implementation of policy for the prosecution of emergency nurse offenders. This
consideration may assist in increasing rates of emergency nurse safety, emergency nurse
retention and best patient outcome. Further research needs to occur therefore to
establish effective responses to reasons why nurses feel the need to protect themselves
from harm from violent patients.
Further study into this phenomenon is recommended, as well as changes in emergency
nurse knowledge and understanding of young adolescent males who present for
treatment of wounds sustained in interpersonal violence activity.
107
REFERENCE LIST
Adler, M & Ziglio, E 1996, Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi Method and its
application to social policy and public health, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London
Aleandri, A & Sansoni, J 2006, „Nurses and burnout: a survey in an Emergency
Department in the Lazio Region‟, Prof Inferm, vol. 59, issue 3, pp. 165-70.
Alexander, C, Fraser, J & Hoeth, R 2004, „Occupational violence in an Australian
health care setting: implications for managers‟, Journal of Health care Management,
vol. 49, issue 6, pp. 377-390.
Armstrong, F 2002, „Violence: It‟s not a part of the job‟, Australian Nursing Journal,
vol. 9, issue 9, pp. 24-26.
Australasian College for Emergency Medicine 2004, Violence in emergency
departments, Policy Document, Ratified March 2004, accessed Aug 2005,
http://www.acem.orgau/open/documents/violence.pdf
Australian Law Reform Commission 2004, Sentencing of Public Offenders, Issues
Paper 29, chapter 14, p. 8, accessed 16th
may 2009,
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/issues/29/01.html
Australian code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2007, Australian Government,
accessed March 2011,
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf
Australian institute of Criminology 2002, Australian crime 2002-facts and figures,
accessed Aug 2005, http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts_and_figures_2002.pdf
Australian Nursing Federation n.d., Harassment, victimisation and bullying in the
workplace, Policy Statement, accessed Mar 2005,
http://www.anf.org.au/pdf_policies/P_Harassment.pdf
Australian Nursing Federation-Victorian Branch 2002, Zero Tolerance (occupational
violence and aggression) Policy, ANF, Melbourne.
Bailey, S 1998, „An exploration of critical care nurses and doctors attitudes towards
psychiatric patients‟, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 8-14.
Baillie, L 2005, „An exploration of nurse-patient relationships in accident and
emergency‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 13, issue 1, pp. 9-4.
108
Bell, Cc, Jenkins, EJ, Kpo, W & Rhodes, H 1994, „Response of Emergency rooms to
victims of interpersonal violence‟, Hospital and Community Psychiatry, vol. 45, issue 2,
pp. 142-146.
Benson, A, Secker, J, Balfe, E, Lipsedge, M, Robinson, S & Walker, J 2003,
„Discourses of blame: accounting for aggression and violence on an acute mental health
inpatient unit‟, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 57, pp. 917-926.
Betsch, T, Plessner, H, Schwieren, C & Gutig, R 2001, „I like it but I don‟t know why: a
value-account approach to Implicit attitudes formation‟, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol.27, pp. 242.
Bitchel-Findlay J, Callen J & Sara A 2008, An information system‟s contribution to
work satisfaction: differing perspectives between doctors and nurses, accessed June
2011, http://www.hisa.org.au/system/files/u2233/12-Chapter07.pdf
Bilgin, H 2009, „An evaluation of nurses‟ interpersonal styles and their experiences of
violence‟, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, vol. 30, pp. 252-259.
Blood R, Putnis, P, Payne, T, Pirkis J, Francis, C, McCallum, K & Andrew, D 2006,
How the Australian media report and portray suicide and mental health and illness:
The case studies, accessed July 2010,
http://www.health.gov.au/internnet/main/publising.nsf/content/20181029DF5196FE...
Boni, N 1999, „Youth and serious crime: Directions for Australian researchers into the
new millennium‟, Children and Crime: Victims and Offenders Conference, accessed
30th
May 2009, http://aic.gov.au/conferences/children/boni.pdf
Bor, W, McGee, T, Hayatbakhsn, R & Najman, J 2004, The young adult outcomes of
childhood and adolescent antisocial behaviour: An Australian cohort study, accessed
24th
April 2010, http://wwwaic.gov.au/crc/reports/200405-27.pdf
Bowel, L, McFarlane, L, Kiyimba, F, Clark, N & Alexander, J 2000, Factors
Underlying and Maintaining Nurses‟ Attitudes to Patients with Severe Personality
Disorder, Final Report to National Forensic Mental Health, accessed 1st June 2010,
http://www.city.ac.uk/soum/dpd/research_reports/bowers_1/sdp.pdf
Braun, V & Clarke, V 2006, „Using thematic analysis in psychology‟, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 77-101.
Burns, N & Grove, S 2007, Understanding Nursing Research; Building an evidence-
based practice, Saunders, St. Louis.
Caldwell, K 1997, „Ideological influences on curriculum development in nurse
education‟, Nurse Educator Today, vol. 17, pp. 140-144.
Camerino, D, Estrn-Behar, M, Conway, P, Van Der Heijden, B & Hasselhorn, H 2008,
„Work related factors and violence among nursing staff in the European NEXT study: A
longitudinal cohort study‟, Im Journal Nursing Studies, vol. 45, pp. 35-50.
109
Canbez, S, Dunbar, C, Dabak, S, Sunter, A, Pekson, Y & Cetinoglu, C 2008, „ Violence
towards workers in hospital emergency services and in emergency medical care units in
Samsun: an epidemiological study‟, Turkish Journal of Trauma and Emergency
Surgery, vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 239-244.
Cannon, R 2009, Policy Framework on Law and Justice, South Australian Council of
Social Services Information paper 2nd
edn, accessed August 3rd
2011,
http://www.sacoss.org.au/online_docs/070501%20policy
Carr Smyth, J 2010, Violent assaults on ER nurses rise as programs cut, accessed 25
June 2011, http://ww.msnbc.msn.com/id/38645144/ns/health-health_care/t/violent-
assaults-er-n..
Cashin, A 2006, Extreme nursing: forensic adolescent mental health nursing in
Australia‟, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, accessed 10th
May
2009, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3892/is_200608/ai_ni16705136
Cashmore, J, Gilmore, L, Goodnow, J, Hyes, A, Homel, R, Lawrence, J, Leech, M,
Najman, J, O‟Connor, I, Vinson, T & Western, J 2002, „Pathways to prevention:
development and early intervention approaches to crime Australia‟, National Anti-crime
Strategy: National crime Prevention Towards a Safer Australia, Australian
Government, Canberra.
Catlette, M 2005, „A descriptive study of the perceptions of workplace violence and
safety strategies of nurses working in level 1 trauma centres‟, Journal of Emergency
Nursing, vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 519 -525.
Celik, SS & Bayrakter, N 2004, „A study of nursing student abuse in Turkey‟, Journal
of Nurse Education, vol. 43, issue 7, pp. 331-336.
Central Northern Adelaide Health Services 2008, Prevention and Management of
Aggression Policy Statement 2008, accessed July 18th
2010,
http://in.health.sa.gov.au/cnahs
Chapman, R & Styles, I 2006, „An epidemic of abuse and violence: Nurse on the front-
line‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 14, pp. 245-249.
Chapman, R, Perry, L, Styles, I & Combs, S 2009, „Predicting patient aggression
against nurses in all hospital areas‟, British Journal of Nursing, vol. 18, issue 8, pp. 476-
483
Chen, S, Matruglio, T, Weatherburn, D & Hua, J 2005, „The transition from juvenile to
adult criminal careers‟, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, NSW Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research, no. 86.
Chung, JYM, Chan, JTS, Yeung, RSD, Wan, RCH & Ho, ST 2003, „Nurses‟ attitude
toward alcoholic patients in accident and emergency department in Hong Kong‟, Hong
Kong Journal Emergency Medicine, vol. 10, issue 2, pp. 104-112.
110
Cooper, C & Swanson, N 2002, „Executive Summary‟, in Cooper, C & Swanson, N
(eds), Violence in the Health Sector: State of the Art, (pp.v-ix), Geneva: International
Labour Office, accessed 10th
March 2011, http://www.icn.en/state.pdf
Cooper, CL & Swanson, N 2001, Workplace violence in the health sector, State of the
Art, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, United Kingdom
and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, United States.
Cooper, JRM, Walker, J, Askew, R, Robinson, JC & McNair, M 2011, „Students‟
perceptions of bullying behaviours by nursing faculty‟, Issues in Educational Research,
vol. 21, issue 1, pp. 1- 21.
Corum, J 2006, „Psychiatric forensic nursing‟, Forensic Nursing, Elsevier/Mosby, St
Louis, chap. 49, pp. 505-520
Crabbe, J, Alexander, DA, Klein, S, Walker, S & Sinclair, J 2002, „Dealing with violent
and aggressive patients: at what cost to nurses?‟, Irish Journal of Psychological
Medicine, vol. 19, issue 4, pp. 121-124.
Crilly, J, Chaboyer, W & Creedy, D 2004, „Violence towards emergency department
nurses by patients‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 12, pp. 67-73.
Cunningham, MD & Sorenson, JR 2007, „Predictive factors for violent misconduct in
close custody‟, Prison Journal, vol. 87, issue 2, pp. 241-253.
Dalkey, N 1967, Delphi, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Day, A, Howells, K & Rickwood, D 2004, „Current trends in the rehabilitation of
juvenile offenders‟, Trends and Issues in the Rehabilitation of Juvenile Offenders,
Australian Institute of Criminology, no. 284, accessed 12th
April 2010,
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi284.html
De Vaus, D 2002, Surveys in Social Research, 5th
edn, Allen & Unwin, Australia.
Deans, C 2003, „Nurses and occupational violence: the role of organisational support in
moderating professional competence‟, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 22,
issue 2, pp. 14-18.
Deans, C 2004, „The effectiveness of a training program for emergency department
nurses in managing violent situations‟, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol.
21, issue 4, pp. 17-22.
Department of Health South Australian Government 2002, Mental Health- the Case for
Change, submission 506, chapter 2, pp. 16, accessed 11th
May 2009,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate.committee/mentalhealth_ctte/report/co2.pdf
Di Martino, V 2002, Relationship between work stress and workplace violence in the
health sector, accessed 2 October 2010, http://
www.worktrauma.org/health/wv_stresspaper.pdf
111
Distasio, CA 2002, Protecting yourself from violence in the workplace, accessed 5
November 2011, http://www.elibrary.bigchalk.com
Donahue, P 1996, „Nursing The Finest Art‟ – An illustrated history, 2nd
edn, Mosby,
USA
Doyle, M & Dolan, M 2002, „Violence risk assessment: combining actuarial and
clinical information to structure clinical judgement for the formulation and management
of risk‟ , Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, vol. 9, issue 6, pp. 649-
657.
Duxbury, J 2003, „Testing a new tool: the management of aggression and violence
attitude scale(MAVAS)‟, Nurse Researcher, vol. 10, issue 4, pp. 39-52
Edgar, K & Rickford, d 2009, Too little too late, an independent review of unmet mental
health needs in prison, accessed 28th
May 2010,
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/temp/TOOspLITTLEspFINALspVERSION10.pdf
Endreny, P 1985, „News values and science values: he editor‟s role in shaping news
about social science‟, MN (research) thesis, Columbia University, New York, USA.
Erikson, L & Williams-Evans, A 2000, „Attitudes of Emergency Nurses regarding
patient assaults‟, Journal of Emergency Nursing, vol. 26, issue 3, pp. 210-215.
Fanning, E 2005, „Formatting a paper-based survey questionnaire: best practice‟,
Practice Assessment Research & Evaluation, vol. 10, issue 12, pp. 1-14.
Farrell, G 2001, „From tall poppies to squashed weeds: Why don‟t nurses pull together
more?‟, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 35, issue 1, pp. 26-33.
Fazio, RH & Rorkes-Ewoldson, Dr 2005, „Acting as we feel: when and how attitudes
guide behaviour‟, in Brook, TC & Green MC (eds), The Psychology of Persuasion, 2nd
den, Allyn & Bacon, New York, pp. 41-62.
Fazzone, P, Barloon, L, McConnell, S & Chitty, J 2000, „Personal Safety, violence and
home health‟, Public Health Nursing, vol. 17, issue 1, pp. 43-52.
Fereday, J & Muir-Cochrane, E 2006, „Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development‟,
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 1-11.
Fernandez, J & Loh, N (2003). Crime and justice statistics for Western Australia: 2002,
Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Ferns, T & Chojnavka I 2005, „Reporting incidents of violence and aggression towards
NHS staff, Nursing Standard, vol. 19, issue 38, pp. 51-56.
Ferns, T 2005, „Terminology, stereotypes and aggressive dynamics in the accident and
emergency department‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 13, pp. 238-246.
112
Ferns, T 2005, „Violence in the accident and emergency department: an international
perspective‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 13, pp. 180-185.
Ferns, T 2006, „Under-reporting of violent incidents against nursing staff‟, Nursing
Stand, vol. 20, issue, 40, pp. 41-45.
Foley, M 2004, „Caring for those who care: a tribute to nurses and their safety. Online
Journal of issues in Nursing, vol. 9, issue 3.
France, D & Levin, S 2006, „System complexity as a measure of safe capacity for the
Emergency Department, Acad Emerg Med,
Franz, S, Zeh, A, Schablon, A, Kuhnert, S & Nienhaus, A 2010, „Aggression and
violence against health care workers in Germany – a cross sectional retrospective
survey‟, Bio Medical Central Health Services Research, vol, 10, issue 51, accessed 2
October 2010, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/51
Fulde, GWO 2005, „Emergency departments under siege?‟, Emergency Medicine
Australasia, vol. 17, pp. 301-303.
Gacki-Smith, J, Juarez, AM, Boyett, l, Homeyer, C, Robinson,l & MacLean S 2009,
„Violence Against Nurses Working in US Emergency Departments‟, The Journal of
Nursing Administration‟, vol. 39, issue7/8, pp. 340-349.
Gerberich S, Church, T, McGovern, P, Hansen, H, Nachreiner, N, Geisser, M, Ryan, A
& Monigan, S 2004, „Epidemiological study of the magnitude ad consequences of work
related violence: the Nurses‟ study‟, Occupational Environmental Medicine, vol. 61,
pp. 495- 503.
Gerberich, SG, Church, TR & McGovern, PM et al 2005, „Risk factors for work-related
assaults on nurses‟, Epidemiology, vol. 16, issue 5, pp. 704-709.
Gerdtz, M, Maude, P, Mann, R, Virtue, E, Cowling, S, Catterson, P & Bucknall, T
2005, Occupational violence in nursing: An analysis of the phenomenon of code
grey/black events in four Victorian hospitals 2005,Policy and Strategic Projects
Division, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Melbourne, Victoria.
Glaister, JA, & Kesling, G 2002, „A Survey of Practicing Nurses‟ Perspectives on
Interpersonal Violence Screening and Intervention‟, Nursing Outlook, vol. 50 issue 4,
pp. 137-43.
Glasman, LR & Albarrain, D 2006, „Forming attitudes that predict future behaviour: A
meta-analysis of the attitudes-behaviour relation‟, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 132,
issue 5, pp. 778-822.
Graycar, A 2003, „Violence in the workplace: personal and political issues‟, Paper
presented at the 2003 Security in Government Conference, Canberra, 30 April – 2 May
2003
113
Greco, P, Spence Laschinger, HK &Wong, C 2006, „Leader empowering behaviours,
staff nurse empowerment and work engagement/burnout‟, Nursing Leadership (CJNL),
vol. 19, issue 4, pp. 41-56.
Hegney, D, Eley, R, Plank, A, Buikstra, E & Parker, V 2006, „Workplace violence in
Queensland, Australia: the results of a comparative study‟, International Journal of
Nursing Practice, vol. 12, issue 4, pp. 220-231.
Henderson, S 2003, Mental illness and the criminal justice system, accessed 14th
May
2009,
http://www.mhcc.org.au/projects/Criminal_Justice/PosPaper%20CrimJustice%20may03
Heslop, L, Elsom, S & Parker, 2000, „Improving continuity of care across psychiatric
and emergency services: combining patient data within a participatory action
framework‟, Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice‟, vol. 31, issue 1, pp. 135-143.
Hilton, L 2010, New York makes assaulting a nurse a felony, accessed September 2011,
http://newa.nurse.com/article/20201122/NY02/111220017
Hislop, E & Melby, V 2003, „The lived experience of violence in accident and
emergency‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 11, pp. 5-11.
Hockley, C 2003, Silent Hell, Peacock Publishers, Norwood, South Australia.
Holmes, C 2006, „Violence, zero tolerance and the subversion of professional practice‟ ,
Contemporary Nurse, vol. 26, pp. 212-222.
Howard, PK & Gilboy, N 2009, „Workplace Violence‟, Advanced Emergency Nursing
Journal, vol.20, issue 18, pp. 94-100.
Indermaur, D 1999, „Situational prevention of violent crime: theory and practice in
Australia‟, Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia in Studies on crime
and Crime Prevention, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 71-87, accessed 16 April 2009,
http://www.crc.law.uwa.edu.au/_data/pages/50334/Situtional_Prevention_of_Violent_C
rime.pdf
Internal Emergency Reponses Statistics 2010, Lyell McEwen Hospital Response to
Code Blacks, Lyell McEwen Hospital.
International Council of Nurse, 2009, Violence: a worldwide epidemic, Geneva-
Switzerland.
International Council of Nurses (2005), Violence: A world-wide epidemic. Nursing
Matters, accessed 15 June 2010, http://www.icn.ch/matters_violence.htm.
International Council of Nurses, 2002, Media Release – New research shows workplace
violence threatens health services worldwide, 1993-99, accessed 11 September 2008,
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm#charts
114
International Labour Office, International Council of Nurses, World Health
Organization, Public Services International 2002, Framework guidelines for addressing
workplace violence in the health sector, International Labour Office Geneva
Switzerland.
Jackson, D, Clare, J & Mannix, J 2002, „Who would want to be a nurse? Violence in the
workplace – a factor in recruitment and retention‟, Journal of Nursing Management,
vol. 10, issue 1, pp. 13-20.
Jacobson, J 2007, „AJN reports: Violence and nursing‟, American Journal of Nursing,
vol. 107, issue 2, pp. 25-26.
Jansen, GJ, Dassen, TWN & Jebbink, G 2005, „Staff attitudes towards aggression in
health care: A review of the literature‟, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health
Nursing, vol. 12, pp. 3-13.
Johnson, D & King, M 1988, Basic forecasting techniques, Buttersworth, London.
Jones, J & Lyneham, J 2000, „Violence: part of the job for Australian nurses?‟,
Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 18, issue 2, pp. 27-32.
Jones, J 2000, An exploration of the impact and implications of violence on nursing
practice in emergency departments, Australian Research Council, Small Grants scheme,
Canberra.
Jonsson, A 2006, „Work related post-traumatic stress as described by Jordanian
emergency nurses‟, Accident and Emergency Nursing, vol. 14, issue 2, pp. 89-96.
Keely, R 2002, „Recognition and prevention of hospital violence‟, Dimensions of
Critical Care Nursing, vol. 21, issue 6, pp. 236-241.
Kennedy, MP 2005, „Violence in emergency departments: under-reported,
unconstrained, and unconscionable‟, The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 183, issue
7, pp. 362-365.
Keough, V, Scholmer, R & Bollenburg, B 2003, „Serendipitous findings from an llliois
ED nursing educational survey reflect a crisis in emergency nursing‟, Journal of
Emergency Nursing, vol. 29, issue 1, pp. 17-22.
Kewalenko, T, Walters, B, Khare, R & Compton, S 2005, „Workplace Violence: A
survey of Emergency Physicians in the State of Michigan‟, Annals of Emergency
Medicine, vol. 46, issue 2, pp. 142-147.
King, R, Corbiere, M & Milord, R et al 2006, „Use of violence risk assessment tool in
acute care hospital. Effectiveness in identifying violent patients‟, American Association
of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, vol. 54, issue 11, pp. 481-487.
Kongsuwan, V, Suttharangsee, W, Isaramalai, S & Kools, S 2009, „Perspectives of
Adolescents, Parents, and Teachers on Youth Violence‟, Self-Care, Dependent-Care &
Nursing, vol.17, issue 01, pp. 23-28.
115
Krug, EG, Dahlberg, LL, Mercy, JA, Zwu, AB, Lozano, R (eds) (2002). World Report
on Violence and Health, World Health Organisation, Geneva.
Ku, T & Minas, H, „Development of the Nursing Relationships Scale: a measure of
interpersonal approach in nursing care‟, n.d., International Journal of Mental Health
Systems, accessed 18 August 2010, http://www.ijmhs.com/content/4/1/12
Lam, L 2002, „Aggression exposure and mental health among nurses‟, Australian e-
journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, vol. 1, issue 2, pp. 1-12
http://auseinet.flinders.eduau/journal/vol1iss2/lam.pdf
Lanza, M, Zeiss, R & Rierdan, J 2006, Non-physical violence. A risk factor for physical
violence in hospital settings‟, AAOHN Journal, vol. 54, pp. 397-402
116
Leather, P 2002, „Workplace violence in the health sector. State of the Art, in Cooper,
Clare & Swanson, N University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and
National institute of occupational safety and health, United State, working paper of the
joint ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI programme on Workplace violence in the health sector,
Geneva.
Leather, P 2002, „Workplace violence: Scope, definition and global context‟, in Cooper,
C & Swanson, N (Eds), Violence in the Health Sector: State of the Art, International
Labour Office, Geneva, pp. 3-18, accessed March 2011, http://www.icn.ch.state.pdf
Lipscomb, J, Silverstein, B, Slavin, T, Cocy, E & Jenkins, L 2003, „Perspectives on
legal strategies to prevent workplace violence‟, Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, vol.
30, issue 3, pp. 166-172.
Loke, JCF 2001, „ Leadership behaviours: Effects on job satisfaction, productivity and
organizational commitment‟, Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 9, issue 4, pp. 191-
204.
Lowry, R 2011, Vassarstats: Statistical Computation, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie,
NY, accessed September 2011, http://www.faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/fisher2x3.html
Lozusic, R 2002, Gangs in NSW: briefing paper, accessed 30th
April 2010,
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf.O/A2BB639AADOE
CFICA256FCFO
Luck, L, Jackson, D & Usher, K 2006, „ Innocent or culpable? Meanings that
emergency department nurses ascribe to individual acts of violence‟, Journal of Clinical
Nursing, vol. 17, pp. 1071-1078.
Luck, L, Jackson, D & Usher, K 2007, „STAMP: components of observable behaviour
that indicate potential for patient violence in emergency departments‟, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, vol. 59, issue1, pp. 11-19.
Lyneham, J 2000, „Violence in New South Wales Emergency Departments‟, Australian
Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 18, issue 2, pp. 8-17.
MacDonald, D (2000). Violence as a public health issue, Australian Institute of
Criminology, Canberra.
Mayhew, C & Chappell, D 2001, Internal violence or bullying and the health
workforce, working paper series no. 141, UNSW Sydney.
Mahoney, B 1991, „The extent, nature and response to victimization of emergency
nurses in Pennsylvania, Journal of Emergency Nursing, vol. 17, issue 5, pp. 282-295.
Manitoba Health, Emergency Department Information System, n.d., accessed 4
November 2010, http://www.manitoba-ehealth.ca/ehr_EDIS.html
Martens, W 2004, Construction functions of aggression in psychopaths, accessed 30th
April 2009, http://www.priory.com/psych/socio.htm
117
Massachusetts Nurses Association 2008, Workplace violence: Prevention and
intervention in health care or anywhere; violence is NOT part of the job, accessed 24
January 2009,
http://www.massnurses.org/health/workplace_violence/Workplace_Violence_Preventio
n_brochure.htm
May, D & Grubbs, L 2002, „The extent, nature & precipitating factors of nurse assault
among three groups of registered nurses in a regional medical centre‟, Journal of
Emergency Nursing, vol. 28, issue 1, pp. 11-17.
Mayhew, C & Chappell, D 2001, Occupational violence: Types, reporting patterns, and
variations between health sectors (No. 139), University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Mayhew, C & Chappell, D 2001, Prevention of occupational violence in the health
workplace, working paper series no. 140, UNSW Sydney.
Mayhew, C & Chappell, D 2003, „The occupational violence experiences of some
Australian health workers: an exploratory study‟, Journal Occupational Health Safety,
vol. 19, issue 6, pp. 3-43.
McDonald, M 2007, „Origins of difficulty in the nurse-patient encounter‟, Nursing
Ethics, vol. 14, issue 4, pp. 510-520.
McKoy, Y & Smith, MH 2001, „Legal considerations of workplace violence in
healthcare environments‟, Nursing Forum, vol.36, issue 1, pp. 5-14.
McLean, E, Jamieson, J & Holmes, J 2006, „How to guard against assault‟, Nursing
Times, vol. 112, issue 20, pp. 58-59.
McPhaul, KM & Lipscomb, JA 2004, „Workplace violence in health care: recognized
but not regulated‟, Online Journal Issues Nursing, http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/.
Merfield, E 2003, How secure are Australian emergency departments?‟, Emergency
Medicine, vol. 15, issues 5-6, pp. 468-474
Minichiello, M, Sullican, G, Greenwood, K & Axford, R 1999, Handbook for research
methods in health Sciences, Pearson Education Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia.
Morse, J & Richards, L 2002, Read me first for a user‟s guide to qualitative methods,
SAGE Publications, London.
Munro, V 2002, „Why do nurses neglect to report violent incidents?‟, Nursing Time,
vol.98, issue 17, pp. 38-39.
Nabb, D 2000, „Visitor‟s Violence: The serious effects of aggression on nurses and
others‟, Nursing Standard, vol. 14, issue 23, pp. 36-38.
Naismith, C 2000, Caring for ourselves in a time of crisis. Broadening our boundaries:
Excellence in medical/surgical nursing. Conference presentation August 4, 2000:
Brisbane.
118
National Committee on Violence 2007, Violence directions in Australia, Australian
Institute of Criminology, accessed 24 July 2010,
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda
National Health & Medical Research Council 2007, Australian code for the responsible
conduct of research, National Health & Medical Research Council, Canberra, accessed
2nd
July 2011, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2008, Exposure to Stress:
Occupational Hazards in Hospitals, Department of Health and Human Resources,
Public Health Service, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Publication 2008-
136, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2008-136/pdfs/2008-136.pdf
Needham, I, Abderhalden, C, Halfens, RJG, Fischer, JE & Dassen, T 2004, „Non-
somatic effects of patient aggression on nurses: a systematic review‟, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, vol. 49, issue 3, pp. 283-296.
News Review Messenger, „Over-stretched Lyell McEwin in Crisis‟, News Review
Messenger, accessed 14th
September 2011, http://news-review-
messenger.whereilive.com.au/news/story/hospital-crisis/
NSW Nurses‟ Association 2010, Nurses experience workplace violence but don‟t report
it, accessed 5 September 2010, http://www.nswnurses.asn.au/news/26244.html
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Victoria), No. 107.
Occupational Health and Safety Risk Management Reports 2010, Lyell McEwen
Hospital Violence and Aggression Incident Reports, Lyell McEwen Hospital.
Palvianen, P, Hietala, M, Routasalo, P, Suominen, T & Hupli, M 2003, „Do nurses
exercise power in basic care situations?‟, Nursing Ehtics, vol.10, issue 3, pp. 269-280.
Pane, G 1991, „Aggression directed toward emergency department staff at a university
teaching hospital‟, Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 20, issue 3, pp. 283-286.
Paton, N 2004, „Patients behaving badly‟ , Nursing Times, vol. 100, issue 45, pp. 26-27.
Patterson, B, Leadbetter, D & Miller, G 2005, „Beyond zero tolerance: a varied
approach to workplace violence‟, British Journal of Nursing, vol. 14, pp. 810-815
Percival, J 2001, „Don‟t be too nice‟, Nursing Standard, vol. 15, issue 19, pp. 22.
Perrone, S 1999, „Violence in the Workplace‟, Australian Institute of and Criminology
Researched Public policy Series, vol. 22, pp. 1-125?? (USB)
Perrone, S 1999, Violence in the Workplace, Australian Institute of Criminology
Research and Public Policy Series. No 22: Canberra.
Polit, D & Beck, C 2008, „Describing data through statistics‟, Nursing research
generating and assessing evidence of nursing practice, 8th
edn, Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins, pp. 556-582.
119
Polit, D & Beck, C 2008, „Using inferential statistics to test hypotheses‟ , Nursing
research generating and assessing evidence of nursing practice, 8th edn, Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, pp. 583-615.
Polit, D & Beck, C 2008, Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for
Nursing Practice, 8th
edn, Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams and Wilkins,
Philadelphia, PA.
Polit, D, Beck, C & Hugler, B 2001, Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods,
appraisal, and utilisation, 5th
edn, Lippincott, Philadelphia.
Ransley, R 2006, Select Committee on Mental Health, pp. 61-62, accessed 10th
May
2009, http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/committee/S8991.pdf
Ranson, D 2004, „Workplace violence in health care‟, Journal of Law and Medicine,
vol. 12, issue 1, pp. 14-16.
Rippon, TJ 2000, „Aggression and violence in health care profession‟, Journal of
Advanced Nursing, vol. 31, issue 2, pp. 452-460.
Roche, M, Diers D,& Catling-Paull, C 2010, „Violence toward nurses, the work
environment, and patient outcomes‟, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 42, issue 1,
pp. 13-22.
Rose, M 1997, „A survey of violence toward nursing staff in one large Irish Accident
and Emergency Department‟, Emergency Nurses Association, vol. 23, issue 3, pp. 214-
219
Rosenberg, ML, Butchart, A, Mercy, J, Narasimhan, V, Waters, H and Marshall, MS
2006, Disease Control Priorities Project: Interpersonal Violence, accessed 26 August
2010, http://www.dcp2.org/pubs/DCP/40/
Rosenstein, AH 2002, „Nurse-physician relationships: impact on nurse satisfaction and
retention‟, American Journal Nursing, vol. 102, issue 6, pp. 26-34.
Rowe, G & Wright, G 1999, „The Delphi: technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and
analysis‟, International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 15, issue 4, pp. 353-375.
Rumsey M, Foley E, Harrigan R, & Dakin, S 2007, National Overview of Violence in
the Workplace, Royal College of Nursing, Canberra, Australia.
Sanson, P, Duck, J, Cupit, g, Unger, J, Saideri, C & Sutton, J 2000, Media presentations
and responsibilities, accessed 12th
April 2010,
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/media_position_paper.pdg
Santina, P & White, R 2000, „Young people and gangs‟, Trends and Issues in Crime
and Criminal Justice, no. 167, Australian Institute of Criminology, accessed 2nd
June
2010, http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti16.pdf
120
Schneider, Z 2003, “Approach in quantitative research‟, Nursing research: methods,
critical appraisal and utilisation, 2nd
edn, Elsevier (Australia) Pty Ltd, Marrickville,
NSW, pp. 251-259.
Schneider, Z, Elliot, D, LoBiondo, G & Haber, J 2003, Nursing Research: Methods,
Critical Appraisal and utilisation, 2nd
edn, Mosby, Marrickville, NSW
Schriver, J, Talmadge, R, Chuong, R & Hedges, J 2003, „Emergency Nursing:
Historical, current, and future roles‟, Acad Emerg Med, vol. 10, issue 7, pp. 798-804.
Secker, J, Benson, A, Balfe, E, Lipsedge, M, Robinson, S & Walker, J 2004,
„Understanding the social context of violent and aggressive incidents on an inpatient
unit‟, Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, vol. 11, 172-178.
Senuzun Ergun, F & Karadakovan A 2005, „Violence towards nursing staff in
emergency departments in one Turkish city‟, International Nursing Review, vol. 52, pp.
154-160
Sercombe, H 2002, „Preventing youth violence‟, Paper presented to the ASEAN
seminar on urban youth work II, Singapore, accessed 4th
May 2010,
http://www.lgaq.asnau/lgaq/resources/community/youth/space/preventingyouthviolence
South Australian Dept. of Health 2009, SA Health Prevention and Management of
Workplace Violence and Aggression Guidelines, Government of South Australia.
Speck, PM, Aiken, MM, Cassinello, B & Bruce, H 2006, „Criminal interpersonal
violence: laws every nurse should know‟, Tennessee Nurse, vol. 59, issue 3, pp. 26-29.
Stearley, J 1997, „Desensitization to nurse abuse‟, Revolution, vol. 7, issue 4, pp. 23-27.
Stokowski, LA 2010, „Violence: not in my job description‟ , Medscape Nursing,
accessed 2011, http:llwww.medscape.com/viewarticle/727144
Stordeur, S, D‟Hoore, W & Vandenberghe, C 2001, „Leadership, organizational stress,
and emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing staff‟, Journal of Advanced Nursing,
vol. 35, issue 4, pp. 533-542.
Strachan-Bennett, S 2005, „Managing Violent Patients‟, Nursing Times, vol. 101, issue
13, pp. 18-20.
Tayler & Rew 2010, „A systematic review of the literature: workplace violence in the
ED‟, Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 20, issue 7-8, pp. 1072-1085.
Taylor, B, Kermode, S & Roberts, K 2007, Research in Nursing and Health Care:
Evidence for Practice, 3rd
edn, Thomson, Sydney, NSW.
Tuckett, A 2005, „Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher‟s
experience‟, Contemporary Nurse, vol. 19, pp. 75-79.
121
Tulloch, J, Lupton, D, Blood, W, Tolloch, M, Jennet, C & Enders, M 1998, „Fear of
crime‟, National Campaign Against Violence and Crime, vol. 2 accessed 18th
May
2010, http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/www/rwpattach.nsf/viewas
Vieira, EM, Perdona, GCS, Almeida AM, Nakano, AMS, Santos, MA, Daltoso, D &
Ferrante, FG 2009, „Knowledge and attitudes of healthcare workers towards gender
based violence‟, Sci Elo Public Health, accessed 3 September 2010,
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S1415-790X2009000400007&script=sci_artt
Wand, TC & Coulson, K 2006, „Zero tolerance: A policy in conflict with current
opinion on aggression and violence management in health‟, Australasian Emergency
Nursing Journal, vol. 9, issue 4, pp. 163-170.
Weaver, K & Olson, J 2006, „Understanding Paradigms used for nursing research‟,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 53, issue 4, pp. 459-569.
White, R 2002, „Understanding youth gangs‟, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal
Justice, no. 237, Australian Institute of Criminology, accessed 3rd
May 2009,
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/yandi237.pdf
White, R 2007,‟Youth gangs, violence and anti-social behaviour‟, Australian Research
Alliance for Children and Youth, accessed 28th
May 2010,
http://www.aracy.orgau?AM/COMMON/pdf/topical%20papers?AntiSocial.pdf
Whittington, R & Richter, D 2006, „From the individual to the interpersonal:
Environment and interaction in the escalation of violence in mental health settings‟, In
D Richter & R Whittington (eds), Violence in mental health settings: Causes,
consequences, management‟, New York: Springer Science-Business Media, pp. 273-
291.
Wittington, R & Wykes, T 1996, „An evaluation of staff training in psychological
techniques for the management of patient aggression‟, Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol.
5, issue 4, pp. 257-261.
Wilkes, L, Mohan, S, Luck, L & Jackson, D 2010, „Development of a violence tool in
the emergency hospital setting‟, Nurse Researcher, vol. 17, issue 4, pp. 70-82.
Winstanley, S & Whittington, R 2004, „Aggressive encounters between patients and
health care staff: the context and assailants‟ levels of cognitive processing‟, Aggressive
Behaviour, vol. 30, pp. 534-543.
Wittington, R & Wykes, T 1996, „Adverse stimulation by staff and violence by
psychiatric patients‟, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 35, pp. 11-20.
World Health Organisation (WHO) 2002, New research shows workplace violence
threatens health services, Geneva, accessed March 2011, http://www.who.int.inf/en/pr-
2002-37.html
World Health Organisation 2002, World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva.
122
Zubrick, S 2006, „Certain cares and uncertain comforts: human development and the
development of children, Curtain Centre for Developmental Health, Institute of Chile
Research, vol. 16, issue 2, accessed 10th
April 2010,
http://www.thoracic.org.au/wund2006.pdf
113
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE:
WHY DO NURSES ELECTRONICALLY CHART VIOLENCE ALERTS ON, (OR ‘FLAG’), EMERGENCY PATIENTS?
‘FLAGGING’: A TERM USED FOR HIGHLIGHTING A PATIENT WHO EXHIBITS PREDICTIVE CUES FOR VIOLENT BEHAVIOR OR WHO IS THREATENING WORKPLACE SAFETY IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VIA THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC CHARTING FOR NURSES USING EDIS, (FORMERLY HASS).
THIS SURVEY AIMS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHY NURSES FLAG PATIENTS IN THE ED AND WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 15-20 MINUTES TO COMPLETE.
[Type the document
title] WHY DO NURSES FLAG EMERGENCY PATIENTS AS A
THREAT TO WORKPLACE SAFETY?
[Type the author name] [Type the company name] [Pick the date]
114
PLEASE REMOVE THIS FORM AND KEEP IT FOR YOUR RECORDS.
WHY DO NURSES ELECTRONICALLY CHART VIOLENCE ALERTS ON, OR ‘FLAG’, EMERGENCY PATIENTS?
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET Dear colleague,
My name is April Stanley-Banks. I am an emergency nurse with a keen interest in violence in the ED and the associated nurse decision to ‘FLAG’ patients on EDIS, (Emergency Department Information Service), (formerly HASS, ((Hospital Administration Software Service)), the ED electronic patient tracking system. I intend to conduct a study on why nurses ‘flag’ patients using a survey questionnaire and focus group interviews. This research is being conducted for a Masters of Nurse Practitioner at the University of Adelaide. Participation I am inviting you to participate in this research study by completing the attached questionnaire. Your participation is voluntary. You are free to withdraw your participation at any time without prejudice.
The survey population The target population for this research is all nurses who work in the Lyell McEwen Hospital ED, including Line and Divisional Nurse Managers and Duty Nurse Coordinators. Aims of the study The aim of this research is to better understand why nurses ‘flag’ patients. Commitments It will take approximately 15-20 minutes for you to complete the research questionnaire. Completion and submission of the questionnaire indicates your consent to participate in the study. If you wish to take part in the focus group interviews, which will be undertaken in July 2011, please feel free to fill in the ‘Willingness to Participate’ form over leaf, detach it from the questionnaire and return it to the questionnaire collection box for completed surveys. Possible benefits of the research Data collected from this research will provide a better understanding of what patient and nurse related factors are associated with ‘flagging’ and contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding meanings of violence attributed by ED nurses and reporting of workplace violence. Confidentiality / Ethical Considerations This research study is anonymous. All records containing personal information will remain confidential and no information which could lead to your identification will be released. Any potential identifying data will not be used in the reporting of this research. This research project has received appropriate University of Adelaide and Adelaide Health Service Research Ethics Committee (TQEH/LMH/MH) approval. Should you wish to speak to a person not directly involved in the study in relation to:
matters concerning policies,
information about the conduct of the study,
your rights as a participant,
or should you wish to make a confidential complaint, you may contact the Executive Officer of The Adelaide Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee, on (08) 8222 6841. Alternatively, should you have any questions please contact the chief investigators below and/or the University of Adelaide Human Ethics Committee Secretary on (08) 8303 6028. Dr Timothy Schultz Tiffany Conroy April Stanley-Banks Technical Director Lecturer Clinical Nurse Australian Patient Safety Foundation Discipline of Nursing Emergency Department University of Adelaide Lyell McEwin Hospital Phone 8303 3091 Phone 8303 6290 Phone 8523 2579 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
PLEASE DETACH THIS FORM AND RETURN IT SEPARATELY TO
THE QUESTIONNAIRE COLLECTION BOX.
115
WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS FORM
If you are interested in participating in the research focus group interviews, please fill in this form, detach
from the questionnaire and return separately to the questionnaire collection box in the staff tea room no later
than 18th February 2011.
I,………………………………………………………………………………………………………(please print name)
am willing to take part in the focus group interviews held for the research project entitled ‘WHY DO NURSES
ELECTRONICALLY CHART VIOLENCE ALERTS ON, OR ‘FLAG’, EMERGENCY PATIENTS?’.
I can be contacted by the researcher by: email;………………………………………..,……………………………
mobile;………………………………….....in order to be informed of the date, place and time of the interviews.
I understand that there may be potentially more participants than is required and that my willingness to
participate should be expressed as early as possible.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(signature) (date)
116
WHY DO NURSES ELECTRONICALLY CHART VIOLENCE ALERTS ON, OR ‘FLAG’, EMERGENCY PATIENTS?
This survey aims to better understand why nurses flag patients in the ED and will take approximately 15 – 20 minutes to complete.
‘FLAG’ …………THE ELECTRONIC IMPLEMENTATION OF A VIOLENCE
ALERT ON A PATIENT BY ED NURSES.
‘EDIS’ …………EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SERVICE.
‘HASS’ …………HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION SOFTWARE SERVICE.
SECTION A: NURSE- RELATED FACTORS
SECTION A1: DEMOGRAPHICS
A1.1 What is your age?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
<20years 21-30years 31-40years 41-50years 51-60years >61years
A1.2 What is your gender?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
male female
A1.3 What is your current position?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
Enrolled Nurse Emergency Department Liaison Nurse
Enrolled Nurse Diploma Associate Clinical Service Coordinator
Enrolled Nurse Advanced Diploma Clinical Nurse Specialist
Registered Nurse Level 1 Role
Progression
Duty Nurse Coordinator
Registered Nurse Level 2 Role
Progression
Nurse Practitioner Candidate
Registered Nurse Level 3 Role
Progression
Clinical Service Coordinator
Clinical Nurse Nurse Practitioner
Emergency Educator Divisional Nurse Manager
A1.4 How long have you worked in your current position?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
<6months 6-12months 12-18months
2-5years 5-10years >10years
A1.5 How long have you worked in the emergency field?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
117
0-2years 6-10years
3-5years >10years
A1.6 How long have you worked in your current location?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
0-2years 6-10years
3-5years >10years
A1.7 Are you Aboriginal or Torres Straight Island descent?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
yes no
A1.8 Are you overseas trained?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
yes no
A1.9 What shifts do you work?
Tick ONLY ONE of the three shaded boxes in each of the row selections below:
Full time permanent Part time permanent Casual
Tick ONLY ONE of three shaded boxes below:
All shifts Day shifts only Night shifts only
Tick ONLY ONE of the three shaded boxes below:
Seven day roster Monday to Friday only Weekends only
A1.10 What is your highest qualification?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
Certificate of Enrolled Nursing Post Graduate Certificate
Diploma of Enrolled Nursing Post Graduate Diploma
Advanced Diploma of Enrolled
Nursing
Masters
Bachelor of Nursing Doctorate
A1.11 Are you currently studying? Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
Yes Go to A1.2 No Go to Section A2.1
A1.12 What is your level of current study?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
Enrolled Nurse Diploma Post Graduate Diploma
Enrolled Nurse Advance Diploma Masters
Post Graduate Certificate Doctorate
118
SECTION A2: FLAGGING
A2.1 Have you ever flagged a patient in the ED? Mark One answer by ticking the appropriate
shaded
box:
No Go to A2.2 Yes Go to A2.3
A2.2 If you have NEVER flagged a patient in the ED, why not?
Mark ALL answers which apply by marking the appropriate shaded boxes below:
Unaware of flagging process The patient is not responsible for actions
Too busy to flag Fear of managerial retaliation post flagging
Don’t know how to flag Perpetrator was provoked by staff
Uncertain of flagging criteria Too distressed to flag post incident
Have not experienced an incident serious
enough to flag
Patient is aiming aggression at hospital,
not me
Too many incidents to flag The patient has been flagged previously
I am not senior enough to flag The patient’s presentation is legitimate
Other – expand below:
Other reasons for not flagging – please elaborate in detail below. Then go to B1.2.
A2.3 If you HAVE flagged a patient in the ED, how FREQUENTLY have you flagged?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box:
Greater than or equal to once a shift Once every six months
Once a week Once a year
Once a month Less than once a year
A2.4 If you HAVE flagged a patient in the ED, how LONG AGO did you last flag?
Mark ONE answer by ticking the shaded appropriate box:
In the last 24 hours In the last six months
In the last week In the last 12 months
In the last month Greater than 12 months ago
119
SECTION B: PATIENT- RELATED FACTORS
B1.1 Of the listed patient behaviors below
which………………….
Mark your answers by ticking each of the appropriate boxes.
… HAVE
you
EVER
‘flagged’?
..WOULD
you
ALWAYS
‘flag’?
..WOULD
you
NEVER
‘flag’?
Threat of harm
Aggressive statements or threats
Intimidation
Clenched fists
Resisting health care
Prolonged or intense glaring at nurse
Name calling
Yelling
Increase in volume (speech)
Irritability
Walking back and forth to nurses’ area
Walking around confined areas such as waiting room or bed
space
Sharp or caustic retorts
Demeaning inflection (pulling faces)
Belligerence
Demanding attention
Humiliating remarks
Others – please specify below and tick appropriately below.
Example: threat with bloody syringe X
Example: yelling + threat to harm + name calling all together X
120
SECTION B: PATIENT- RELATED FACTORS
B1.2 Which THREE of the listed patient behaviors below would you MOST LIKELY flag?
Tick THREE responses ONLY.
Threat of harm
Aggressive statements or threats
Intimidation
Clenched fists
Resisting health care
Prolonged or intense glaring at nurse
Name calling
Yelling
Increase in volume (speech)
Irritability
Walking back and forth to the nurses’ area
Walking around confined areas such as waiting rooms or bed space
Sharp or caustic retorts
Demeaning inflection (pulling faces)
Belligerence
Demanding attention
Humiliating remarks
Others – please elaborate below:
121
SECTION C: NURSE ATTITUDES, PRACTICE AND KNOWLEDGE OF ‘FLAGGING’ IN THE ED
NURSE ATTITUDES TOWARDS ‘FLAGGING’
Please tick one box to indicate your answer.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree or
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
C1.1 Patients who direct violence at me personally should
always be flagged.
C1.2 Patients who direct violence at the hospital system
should always be flagged.
C1.3 Violent patients who may not be responsible for their
behavior due to illness should always be flagged.
C1.4 Violent patients whose illness affects their self- control
should always be flagged
C1.5 I am more likely to flag a patient if their presentation to
ED is illegitimate.
NURSE PRACTICES OF ‘FLAGGING’ Please tick one box to indicate your answer.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
agree
nor
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
C1.6 I flag to help reduce the trajectory of violence in the ED.
C1.7 I flag to help protect my work colleagues.
C1.8 I flag to equip ED nurses against violent patients.
C1.9 flagging makes me feel safer in the ED.
C1.10 I always observe violence alerts on flagged patients
before approaching them.
NURSE KNOWLEDGE OF FLAGGING Please tick one box to indicate your answer.
Yes
No
Don’t know
C1.11 Is there a hospital policy for patient flagging?
C1.12 Is there a process for removing a flag from a patient’s
record?
C1.13 Have you ever removed a flag from a patient’s record?
C1.14 Would you ever remove a flag from a patient’s record?
122
SECTION D: NURSE PERCEPTION OF FLAGGING IN THE ED
Please elaborate your answers to the following open-ended questions:
D1.1 Is flagging a part of the nursing duty of care? Mark one answer by ticking the appropriate
shaded box.
Yes No
Why?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…..….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
D1.2 Do you agree that violence flags already placed on patients should ever be removed? Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………....………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
D1.3 Does experience gained with exposure to violence cause you to flag less or more?
Mark one answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box.
Less More
Why?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………
….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
D1.4 Have you ever used an Aggression/Violence Report Form IF18 to report a violent incident in
which you have been involved? Mark one answer by ticking the appropriate shaded box.
Yes No
If yes, did you flag the patient involved on EDIS as well? Why? ………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
D1.5 Do you feel that patient information regarding violent history known by the ED Mental Health
team should be linked to the EDIS, (flagging) system? Mark one answer by ticking the appropriate
box below.
Yes No
Why?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………
…..……………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………
……….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
D1.6 How does an existing flag influence your interaction with that patient? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
.......................................................................................................................................................………….......
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THANKYOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
125
Appendix 3: Focus Group Interview Questions
1. How effective do you think security is in the emergency department
against violent patients?
2. Do you feel that toleration to violence is an expected part of your
job?
3. Are you equipped to deal with violence at work?
4. Does experience of and exposure to workplace violence impact on
you personally?
5. Are you supported by management in relation to workplace
violence?
130
Appendix 5: Newspaper Articles
1. Sunday Mail August 27th
2011 p5 2. Messenger News February 15
th
p1 3. Messenger News February 15
th
p10
131
Appendix 5: Newspaper Articles
1. Messenger News 15th
February 2011 p29 2. News Review Messenger 16
th
February 2011 p1
134
Appendix 7: Willingness to Participate in Focus Group Interview Form
PLEASE DETACH THIS FORM AND RETURN IT SEPARATELY TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE COLLECTION BOX.
WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS FORM
If you are interested in participating in the research focus group interviews, please fill in this
form, detach from the questionnaire and return separately to the questionnaire collection box
in the staff tea room no later than 18th February 2011.
I,………………………………………………………………………………………………………….(please print name)
am willing to take part in the focus group interviews held for the research project entitled
‘WHY DO NURSES ELECTRONICALLY CHART VIOLENCE ALERTS ON, OR ‘FLAG’, EMERGENCY
PATIENTS?’.
I can be contacted by the researcher by: email;…………………………………………..,…………………………
mobile;……………………………………….....in order to be informed of the date, place and time of the
interviews.
I understand that there may be potentially more participants than is required and that my
willingness to participate should be expressed as early as possible.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(signature) (date)
135
Appendix 8: Participant Information Sheet
PLEASE REMOVE THIS FORM AND KEEP IT FOR YOUR RECORDS.
WHY DO NURSES ELECTRONICALLY CHART VIOLENCE ALERTS ON, OR ‘FLAG’, EMERGENCY PATIENTS?
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
Dear colleague,
My name is April Stanley-Banks. I am an emergency nurse with a keen interest in violence in the ED and the associated nurse decision to ‘FLAG’ patients on EDIS, (Emergency Department Information Service), (formerly HASS, ((Hospital Administration Software Service)), the ED electronic patient tracking system. I intend to conduct a study on why nurses ‘flag’ patients using a survey questionnaire and focus group interviews. This research is being conducted for a Masters of Nurse Practitioner at the University of Adelaide.
Participation
I am inviting you to participate in this research study by completing the attached questionnaire. Your participation is voluntary. You are free to withdraw your participation at any time without prejudice.
The survey population
The target population for this research is all nurses who work in the Lyell McEwen Hospital ED, including Line and Divisional Nurse Managers and Duty Nurse Coordinators.
Aims of the study
The aim of this research is to better understand why nurses ‘flag’ patients.
Commitments
It will take approximately 15-20 minutes for you to complete the research questionnaire. Completion and submission of the questionnaire indicates your consent to participate in the study. If you wish to take part in the focus group interviews, which will be undertaken in July 2011, please feel free to fill in the ‘Willingness to Participate’ form over leaf, detach it from the questionnaire and return it to the questionnaire collection box for completed surveys.
Possible benefits of the research
Data collected from this research will provide a better understanding of what patient and nurse related factors are associated with ‘flagging’ and contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding meanings of violence attributed by ED nurses and reporting of workplace violence.
Confidentiality / Ethical Considerations
This research study is anonymous. All records containing personal information will remain confidential and no information which could lead to your identification will be released. Any potential identifying data will not be used in the reporting of this research. This research project has received appropriate University of Adelaide and Adelaide Health Service Research Ethics Committee (TQEH/LMH/MH) approval.
Should you wish to speak to a person not directly involved in the study in relation to:
matters concerning policies,
information about the conduct of the study,
your rights as a participant,
or should you wish to make a confidential complaint,
you may contact the Executive Officer of The Adelaide Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee, on (08) 8222 6841. Alternatively, should you have any questions please contact the chief investigators below and/or the University of Adelaide Human Ethics Committee Secretary on (08) 8303 6028.
Dr Timothy Schultz Tiffany Conroy April Stanley-Banks
Technical Director Lecturer Clinical Nurse
Australian Patient Safety Foundation Discipline of Nursing Emergency Department
University of Adelaide Lyell McEwin Hospital
Phone 8303 3091 Phone 8303 6290 Phone 8523 2579
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
168
Appendix 14: Participant Response to Item B1.2
I would be most likely to flag patients which have actually struck nursing staff &
caused bodily harm.
Spitting, lunging, throwing items, scratching, biting, pulling hair.
I would flag anyone threatening safety by use of bomb/explosive device in or
around the department.
Concealment of weapons/carrying weapons.
Any patient requiring multiple code blacks.
Star force involvement/siege.
Patient threatening to kill other patients in the waiting room.
Patient with HIV threatening to spray me with blood.
Patient chased me with a screwdriver and I had to run to safe area.
I found a patient trying to hang themselves in the toilet.
Patients punching nurses.
169
Appendix 15: Focus Group In-House Nurse-to-Nurse Discussions
Discussion 1:
Group 2, (f): The thing with this training is you‟ve got this big need to be trained, and
it‟s like with the protocol with the STEMI or a code stroke – you must know everything
to the ninth degree. But, when you look at people‟s recall at what was taught, they can‟t
tell you anything coz a lot of it is about how committed you are to taking this stuff on
board. It amazes me how whether it is the way the training is delivered, or for whatever
reason, people are not coming away with enough to make them feel safer.
Group 2, (g): You need to give people the skills to recognise and cope better with
violence.
Group 2, (f): Who taught you about what‟s important about a cardiology patient?
Group 2, (g): Most of what I have learnt is from being on the job.
Group 2, (f): You sought it out didn‟t you?
Group 2, (g): Yes.
Group 2, (f): For some reason I hear all the time, „I haven‟t been taught‟. You need to
find it out for yourself.
Group2, (g): But, aggression and violence is not a part of what we‟re all brought up to
believe. So why would we source out something that‟s going to be stressful to us? You
go into nursing to heal, to help the sick people and it‟s not a part of nursing that you‟re
going to be spat on, abused and slapped. It‟s just not a part of life in general. If you‟re
living in an abusive relationship, like child abuse, you can‟t get out of it. But, when
you‟re an adult in a bad relationship, you can go. If you want to leave emergency
nursing then that‟s fine. But, it‟s not a part of life that we‟re brought up to believe is
right. It‟s just not acceptable. Why would I go and learn karate? Violence is not a part
of what life is about.
Group 2, (f): You just said that it is.
Group 2, (g): Here at work. I don‟t have to try and get out of violent situations like
running across the street to get away from my husband or children or grandchildren –
there‟s just no violence there. I want to learn things about healing. You want to be a
nurse which means healing, compassion, empathy. But, the people that you treat won‟t
allow you to.
Group 2, (f): There is a contradiction in your perception of what a nurse is and what
nursing really is.
170
Appendix 15: Focus Group In-House Nurse-to-Nurse Discussions (continued)
Group 2, (g): Nursing is changing. You go to a course to learn how to give medications.
You don‟t think you go to a course to learn how to defend yourself. Part of the nursing
uniform should be a stun gun or Taser. Before I came into nursing I didn‟t think I would
need to source solutions for protection from violence. I guess it was naïve of me and I
realize that I need to develop coping mechanisms.
Group 3, (i): You feel obligated to do your nursing assessment of violent patients.
Group 3, (l): Oh no, I don‟t. If I know that a person is violent, I won‟t. I don‟t care. I
refuse to go in the cubicle.
Group 3, (i): But somebody has to.
Group 3, (l): No they don‟t.
Group 3, (i): You just can‟t leave a patient in a cubicle unattended.
Group 3, (l): Yes you can. If they are aggressive – yes. I don‟t believe you have to go in
at all. No way. Why would you put yourself in a situation where you could be punched
or kicked or shoved just to do an assessment? If he‟s walking around and he‟s got an
airway then that‟s okay. The only time you would go in is if he dropped to the floor and
you were able to manage him.
Group 3, (i): So you‟re saying if the patient‟s aggressive for 3/24 and something else
could be going on, you wouldn‟t intervene, or do anything. You would just stand back
and look at them?
Group 3, (l): I would wait until they were going to call a code black, have the proper
team there, to put him under control, and then I would do my assessment. Because, I‟m
not going in while he‟s violent and throwing things around. You can‟t even do an
assessment if he‟s violent.
Top Related