A descriptive study on the use of restrictive interventions for potentially or actually violent patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Restrictive interventions (chemical, physical, or mechanical restraints) to manage patients who are potentially or actually violent in the emergency department (ED) can be harmful and costly. Non-restrictive interventions are advocated; but this must be preceded with an understanding of patient characteristics that influence their use. A study was conducted to describe the use of restrictive interventions and ascribe it with patient characteristics in the ED. METHODS: Records from October 2020 to March 2021 in the occupational violence database were used to analyse patient characteristics and restrictive interventions. Logistic regression was used to establish influencing factors of restrictive interventions adjusting for clinically relevant confounders. RESULTS: Of the N = 1276 potentially or actually violent patients, 70 % received restrictive interventions. Chemical restraint was common, with 1 in 2 patients receiving either oral medication or intramuscular injection. Probability of restrictive interventions were higher in patients who were intoxicated [(adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.675-7.21)], had high triage score (aOR 2.084, 95 % CI 1.094-3.96), and were in the ED involuntarily (aOR 1.494, 95 % CI 1.105-2.020). CONCLUSION: The results reveal the need for multifaceted approaches that limit the presentations of, and minimise restrictive interventions among, potentially or actually violent patients.

Validity and reliability of the novel three-item occupational violence patient risk assessment tool.

AIM: To develop and psychometrically test an occupational violence (OV) risk assessment tool in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Three studies were conducted in phases: content validity, predictive validity and inter-rater reliability from June 2019 to March 2021. METHODS: For content validity, ED end users (mainly nurses) were recruited to rate items that would appropriately assess for OV risk. Subsequently, a risk assessment tool was developed and tested for its predictive validity and inter-rater reliability. For predictive validity, triage notes of ED presentations in a month with the highest OV were assessed for presence of OV risk. Each presentation was then matched with events recorded in the OV incident register. Sensitivity and specificity values were calculated. For inter-rater reliability, two assessors-trained and untrained-independently assessed the triage notes for presence of OV risk. Cohen's kappa was calculated. RESULTS: Two rounds of content validity with a total of N = 81 end users led to the development of a three-domain tool that assesses for OV risk using aggression history, behavioural concerns (i.e., angry, clenched fist, demanding, threatening language or resisting care) and clinical presentation concerns (i.e., alcohol/drug intoxication and erratic cognition). Recommended risk ratings are low (score = 0 risk domain present), moderate (score = 1 risk domain present) and high (score = 2-3 risk domains present), with an area under the curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.7-0.81, p < .01). Moderate risk rating had a 61% sensitivity and 91% specificity, whereas high risk rating had 37% sensitivity and 97% specificity. Inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.67 to 0.75 (p < .01), suggesting moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The novel three-domain OV risk assessment tool was shown to be appropriate and relevant for application in EDs. The tool, developed through a rigorous content validity process, demonstrates acceptable predictive validity and inter-rater reliability. IMPACT: The developed tool is currently piloted in a single hospital ED, with a view to extend to inpatient settings and other hospitals.

Simulation for emergency nurses (SIREN): A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Within nursing education, simulation has been recognised as an effective learning strategy. Embedding simulation within clinical units has the potential to enhance patient safety and improve clinical outcomes. However it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of this educational technique to support the actual value and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to implement and evaluate an innovative simulation experience for registered nurses. METHODS: A high-fidelity simulation focusing on nursing assessment was conducted with 50 Registered Nurses in an Emergency Department (ED) at a large tertiary referral hospital. Two questionnaires were completed pre and post simulation to assess anxiety related to participating in the simulation, and self-efficacy in patient assessment. Participant satisfaction and self-confidence in learning was assessed post simulation. Additionally a documentation audit from the patient's electronic chart was completed to review documentation entries before and after participation in the simulation. RESULTS: Anxiety scores decreased significantly from pre (M = 38.56, SD = 9.87) to post (M = 33.54, SD = 8.99), t(49) = 4.273, p < 0.001. There was a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy scores from pre (M = 195.16, SD = 28.09) to post (M = 214.12, SD =25.77), t(49) = 5.072, p < 0.001. ED nurses were highly satisfied with their simulation training and they were in agreement with the statements about self-confidence in learning. There was a statistically significant increase in two components of the documentation scores; initial clinical handover increased from pre (M = 7.88, SD = 1.76) to post (M = 8.79, SD =1.22), t(41) = 3.41, p < 0.001 and indicators of urgent illness increased from pre (M = 7.33, SD = 1.95) to post (M = 8.10, SD = 1.45), t(41) =2.27, p = 0.028. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that a high fidelity simulation decreased participants' anxiety, increased self-efficiency in patient assessment, and improved documentation in patient records. Additionally ED nurses were highly satisfied with the simulation training.