Nurse, Provider, and Emergency Department Technician: Perceptions and Experiences of Violence and Aggression in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Patient/visitor violence and aggression (V&A) in the emergency department occurs daily. Few interventions exist to decrease V&A. Research describing prevalence, severity, and perceived safety among ED clinicians is limited. METHODS: A descriptive survey explored V&A against ED clinicians in one urban emergency department. A sample of nurses, ED technicians, physicians and advanced practice providers participated. Participants completed a demographic survey, Personal Workplace Safety Instrument for Emergency Nurses (PWSI-EN), and ENA V&A frequency checklist. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for unadjusted and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for adjusted associations were used to assess differences in the PWSI-EN survey composite score and "feeling safe in the ED" among ED roles. ANCOVA was adjusted for potential confounders: sex, race, years working in emergency department, and shift worked. RESULTS: Sixty-five (46.4%) of the 140 ED clinicians returned surveys, which were almost evenly distributed between ED clinician roles and sex. Mean age was 37.2 (range: 21-64) years. All (100%) nurses and providers reported being verbally abused. More nurses reported physical violence (n = 21, 87.5%) than providers (n = 7, 36.8%) and ED technicians (n = 11, 55%). Nurses and ED technicians reported experiencing greater prevalence of physical violence than providers (P < .05). Nurses (mean 3.29, range 2.95 to 3.63) were more fearful for their personal safety than ED technicians (mean 3.88, range 3.48 to 4.28) (P < .03). DISCUSSION: V&A are common creating a fearful environment. However, little research regarding clinician perceptions exists. Our study aids in identifying areas for clinician-targeted strategies to prevent ED V&A.

Patient Extrication Process for Urban Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to create and implement a safe and efficient role-based process to rapidly extricate traumatically injured persons transported to the emergency department via police transport or private vehicle. METHODS: A simulation exercise was conducted with an interdisciplinary team of ED personnel, Philadelphia Police Department, and University of Pennsylvania police officers to identify the necessary steps to rapidly extricate traumatically injured individuals. RESULTS: The simulation exercise identified several new processes needed to complete rapid extrications of traumatically injured individuals from private and police vehicles. These included a safe drop-off location, ED personnel role identification, proper personal protective equipment donning, 2 rapid extrication techniques, and a hard stop for weapon check by security before entering the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Through simulation, the ED interdisciplinary team was able to develop a role-based safe and efficient rapid extrication process. Educating new ED personnel, security, and Pennsylvania police continues to facilitate ongoing safe rapid extrication practices in the emergency department.

Impact of a Planned Workflow Change: Super Track Improves Quality and Service for Low-Acuity Patients at an Inner-City Hospital.

ED volume and acuity were anticipated to increase at an inner-city hospital. A strategy to mitigate the impact was needed. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team facilitated a workflow modification project implementing a Super Track to treat low-acuity patients. A literature review led to the creation of an evidence-based framework. Staff education regarding the change process and the results of an analysis in the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threat format, along with simulation exercises and a pilot project, supported implementation of this strategy. RESULTS: Simulation exercises demonstrated that the proposed workflow with a Super Track had the potential to reduce the length of stay among level 4 and 5 patients coming to the emergency department. Implementing a Super Track reduced the patient arrival-to-provider time for low-acuity patients, but length of stay was not affected. After implementation, the number of patients who left without being seen decreased by 40%, and patient satisfaction increased by 36%. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A modified front-end workflow process produced a statistically significant, sustainable improvement in patient flow of low-acuity patients in our emergency department. Use of an evidence-based, multidisciplinary team approach supported the change process.