A confirmatory study of Violence Risk Assessment Tool (M55) and demographic predictors of patient violence

Associations Between Oversedation and Agitation in Postanesthesia Recovery Room and Subsequent Severe Behavioral Emergencies

OBJECTIVES

Hospital-based behavioral emergency response teams (BERT) respond to acute behavioral disturbances among hospitalized patients. We aimed to examine associations between altered mental status in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and behavioral disturbances on surgical wards requiring BERT activation.

METHODS

Electronic medical records of patients who underwent general anesthesia and were admitted to the PACU between May 2018-December 2020 were reviewed for episodes of BERT activations on surgical wards. Characteristics of BERT patients were compared with the rest of surgical population during the same period to examine risk factors for BERT.

RESULTS

Of 56,275 adult surgical patients, 133 patients had 178 BERT activations (incidence 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-2.8 per 1000 admissions), with 21 being for physical assault. The risk for BERT activation was increased with each decade over age of 50 as well as younger age (30 versus 50 y), male sex (odds ratio [OR] = 2.48, 95% CI 1.69, 3.62), longer procedures (OR = 1.08 per 30 minutes, 95% CI 1.05, 1.11), and alterations in mental status in PACU, with both moderate/deep sedation (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.04, 2.57) and agitation/combative state (OR = 8.47, 95% CI 5.13, 14.01), P < 0.001 for all comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Early postoperative agitation and oversedation are associated with BERT activation on surgical wards. Altered mental status in PACU should be conveyed to accepting hospital units so healthcare staff can be vigilant for the potential development of behavioral disturbances.

Selecting an Instrument for Assessing the Risk of Patient Violence Across a Healthcare System

ABSTRACT

Physical violence is one of the leading causes of nurse injury in the workplace. Studies indicate patients most often incite the violence and both patient and organization factors contribute to violent events. It has been suggested that an assessment be done upon admission to identify those patients at risk for violent behavior. To implement this intervention, organizations must objectively select a screening instrument that is accurate, easy to use, and appropriate for multiple patient populations.

Risk factors for inducing violence in patients with delirium

BACKGROUND

Violence in patients with delirium may occur suddenly and unpredictably in a fluctuating state of consciousness. Although various factors are involved, appropriate assessment and early response to factors related to violence in delirium are expected to prevent dangerous and distressing acts of violence against patients, their families and medical staff, and minimize the use of physical restraint and excessive drug sedation.

METHODS

Subjects were 601 delirium cases referred to the department of psychiatry over the course of 5 years at a general hospital. The demographic, clinical, and pharmacological variables of patients with violence (n = 189) were compared with those of patients without violence (n = 412). Logistic regression analysis was applied to determine whether any specific individual factors were associated with violence.

RESULTS

Current smoker status (p < .0005), older age (p < .0005), male gender (p = .004), and use of intensive care units (p = .043) were identified as factors associated with violence in patients with delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening tools for violence in patients with delirium and adequate management may assist in better outcomes for patients and medical staff. Further research should evaluate the usefulness of nicotine replacement treatment for the prevention of violence during nicotine withdrawal, including whether it is safe for elderly inpatients with a high incidence of delirium in clinical practice.

Organisational interventions for preventing and minimising aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates

BACKGROUND

Workplace aggression is becoming increasingly prevalent in health care, with serious consequences for both individuals and organisations. Research and development of organisational interventions to prevent and minimise workplace aggression has also increased. However, it is not known if interventions prevent or reduce occupational violence directed towards healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of organisational interventions that aim to prevent and minimise workplace aggression directed towards healthcare workers by patients and patient advocates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases from inception to 25 May 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Wiley Online Library); MEDLINE (PubMed); CINAHL (EBSCO); Embase (embase.com); PsycINFO (ProQuest); NIOSHTIC (OSH-UPDATE); NIOSHTIC-2 (OSH-UPDATE); HSELINE (OSH-UPDATE); and CISDOC (OSH-UPDATE). We also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portals (www.who.int/ictrp/en).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) of any organisational intervention to prevent and minimise verbal or physical aggression directed towards healthcare workers and their peers in their workplace by patients or their advocates. The primary outcome measure was episodes of aggression resulting in no harm, psychological, or physical harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. This included independent data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment by at least two review authors per included study. We used the Haddon Matrix to categorise interventions aimed at the victim, the vector or the environment of the aggression and whether the intervention was applied before, during or after the event of aggression. We used the random-effects model for the meta-analysis and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies. Four studies were conducted in nursing home settings, two studies were conducted in psychiatric wards and one study was conducted in an emergency department. Interventions in two studies focused on prevention of aggression by the vector in the pre-event phase, being 398 nursing home residents and 597 psychiatric patients. The humour therapy in one study in a nursing home setting did not have clear evidence of a reduction of overall aggression (mean difference (MD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.34; very low-quality evidence). A short-term risk assessment in the other study showed a decreased incidence of aggression (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence) compared to practice as usual. Two studies compared interventions to minimise aggression by the vector in the event phase to practice as usual. In both studies the event was aggression during bathing of nursing home patients. In one study, involving 18 residents, music was played during the bathing period and in the other study, involving 69 residents, either a personalised shower or a towel bath was used. The studies provided low-quality evidence that the interventions may result in a medium-sized reduction of overall aggression (standardised mean difference (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.05; 2 studies), and physical aggression (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.24; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), but not in verbal aggression (SMD -0.31, 95% CI; -0.89 to 0.27; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). One intervention focused on the vector, the pre-event phase and the event phase. The study compared a two-year culture change programme in a nursing home to practice as usual and involved 101 residents. This study provided very low-quality evidence that the intervention may result in a medium-sized reduction of physical aggression (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91), but there was no clear evidence that it reduced verbal aggression (MD 0.76, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54). Two studies evaluated a multicomponent intervention that focused on the vector (psychiatry patients and emergency department patients), the victim (nursing staff), and the environment during the pre-event and the event phase. The studies included 564 psychiatric staff and 209 emergency department staff. Both studies involved a comprehensive package of actions aimed at preventing violence, managing violence and environmental changes. There was no clear evidence that the psychiatry intervention may result in a reduction of overall aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.15; low-quality evidence), compared to the control condition. The emergency department study did not result in a reduction of aggression (MD = 0) but provided insufficient data to test this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low to low-quality evidence that interventions focused on the vector during the pre-event phase, the event phase or both, may result in a reduction of overall aggression, compared to practice as usual, and we found inconsistent low-quality evidence for multi-component interventions. None of the interventions included the post-event stage. To improve the evidence base, we need more RCT studies, that include the workers as participants and that collect information on the impact of violence on the worker in a range of healthcare settings, but especially in emergency care settings. Consensus on standardised outcomes is urgently needed.

The validity and utility of violence risk assessment tools to predict patient violence in acute care settings: An integrative literature review

To examine risk assessment tools to predict patient violence in acute care settings. An integrative review of the literature. Five electronic databases - CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, OVID, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched between 2000 and 2018. The reference list of articles was also inspected manually. The PICOS framework was used to refine the inclusion and exclusion of the literature, and the PRISMA statement guided the search strategy to systematically present findings. Forty-one studies were retained for review. Three studies developed or tested tools to measure patient violence in general acute care settings, and two described the primary and secondary development of tools in emergency departments. The remaining studies reported on risk assessment tools that were developed or tested in psychiatric inpatient settings. In total, 16 violence risk assessment tools were identified. Thirteen of them were developed to assess the risk of violence in psychiatric patients. Two of them were found to be accurate and reliable to predict violence in acute psychiatric facilities and have practical utility for general acute care settings. Two assessment tools were developed and administered in general acute care, and one was developed to predict patient violence in emergency departments. There is no single, user-friendly, standardized evidence-based tool available for predicting violence in general acute care hospitals. Some were found to be accurate in assessing violence in psychiatric inpatients and have potential for use in general acute care, require further testing to assess their validity and reliability.