Identifying Type II workplace violence from clinical notes using natural language processing.

BACKGROUND: Type II workplace violence in health care, perpetrated by patients/clients toward home healthcare nurses, is a serious health and safety issue. A significant portion of violent incidents are not officially reported. Natural language processing can detect these "hidden cases" from clinical notes. In this study, we computed the 12-month prevalence of Type II workplace violence from home healthcare nurses' clinical notes by developing and utilizing a natural language processing system. METHODS: Nearly 600,000 clinical visit notes from two large U.S.-based home healthcare agencies were analyzed. The notes were recorded from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Rule- and machine-learning-based natural language processing algorithms were applied to identify clinical notes containing workplace violence descriptions. RESULTS: The natural language processing algorithms identified 236 clinical notes that included Type II workplace violence toward home healthcare nurses. The prevalence of physical violence was 0.067 incidents per 10,000 home visits. The prevalence of nonphysical violence was 3.76 incidents per 10,000 home visits. The prevalence of any violence was four incidents per 10,000 home visits. In comparison, no Type II workplace violence incidents were recorded in the official incident report systems of the two agencies in this same time period. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: Natural language processing can be an effective tool to augment formal reporting by capturing violence incidents from daily, ongoing, large volumes of clinical notes. It can enable managers and clinicians to stay informed of potential violence risks and keep their practice environment safe.

Association of a Substance Use Disorder with Infectious Diseases among Adult Home Healthcare Patients with a Venous Access Device.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) and high incidence of infectious diseases are both critical public health issues. Among patients who use a venous access device (VAD) in home care settings, SUDs may play a role in increasing their risk of having a concurrent infectious disease. This study examined the association of SUD with infectious diseases among adult home healthcare patients with a VAD. We identified adult patients with an existing VAD who were admitted to a home healthcare agency August 1, 2017-July 31, 2018 from the electronic health records of a large Medicare-certified agency. Four serious infectious diseases (endocarditis, epidural abscess, septic arthritis, and osteomyelitis) and SUD related to injectable drugs were identified using relevant ICD-10 codes. Multiple logistic regression was performed to examine the association. Of 416 patients with a VAD, 12% (n = 50) had at least one diagnosis of a serious infectious disease. The percentage of patients who had a serious infectious disease was 40% among those with SUDs, compared with only 11% among those without SUDs. After adjusting for age and sex, the odds of having a serious infectious disease was 3.52 times greater for those with SUDs compared with those without (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 4.52 [1.48-13.79], n = .008). Our findings suggest that home healthcare patients with a VAD and a documented SUD diagnosis may have an increased risk of having a concurrent serious infectious disease. Therefore, patients with an SUD and a VAD would need more attention from home healthcare providers to prevent a serious infectious disease. Further research is suggested on modalities of care for individuals with an SUD and VAD to reduce the incidence of infectious diseases so that care can be delivered safely and efficiently in a home healthcare setting.

Nurses' Experience With Type II Workplace Violence and Underreporting During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Type II (customer-on-worker) workplace violence (WPV) against nurses and its underreporting are ongoing safety and health challenges in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained patients and nurses and, in turn, may have increased WPV. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to describe and compare a sample of nurses' reported prevalence of Type II WPV and their reporting of these events during the pandemic. METHODS: Data from an online survey of registered nurses (N = 373) working in hospitals were included. Prevalence was calculated for physical violence and verbal abuse, and their reporting of these events, including the experience of violence between nurses who did and did not care for patients with COVID-19. FINDINGS: Overall, 44.4% and 67.8% of the nurses reported experiencing physical violence and verbal abuse, respectively, between February and May/June 2020. Nurses who provided care for patients with COVID-19 experienced more physical violence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.30, 3.67]) and verbal abuse (aOR = 2.10, 95% CI = [1.22, 3.61]) than nurses who did not care for these patients. One in 10 nurses felt reporting the incident was more difficult during the pandemic. CONCLUSION/APPLICATION TO PRACTICE: A significant proportion of nurses who cared for patients with COVID-19 experienced more physical violence and verbal abuse, and more difficulty in reporting to management. As the pandemic continues, health care organizations need to recognize that workers may be at an elevated risk for experiencing WPV and may be less likely to report, resulting in an urgent need for prevention efforts on their part.

Understanding Reporting of Type II Workplace Violence Among Home Health Care Nurses.

Background: Home health care nurses (HHNs) work alone in patients' homes. They experience high rates of Type II (client/patient-on-worker) workplace violence (WPV); however, little is known about the extent and factors of their reporting. Methods: A convenience sample of employees aged 18 years and older and working as an HHN or management staff were recruited from a U.S. nonprofit home health care agency. To describe the extent of reporting of WPV events, an HHN survey was conducted. To identify the barriers and facilitators to reporting, two HHN focus groups were conducted, and management key informant interviews were employed. Findings: We recruited 18 HHNs and five management staff into the study. Almost all HHNs reported to management the most serious forms of violence they experienced, and that HHNs reported WPV when they perceived that reporting was beneficial (alerting other nurses and management) and supported by management staff. However, they were unwilling to report when it was perceived as disadvantageous (reliving the trauma), discouraged (by a norm that experiencing violence is a part of the job), unachievable (unstandardized reporting process), and ambiguous (uncertain of what is reportable). Management staff perceived a lack of standardized reporting processes as a barrier when responding to HHNs' reporting. Conclusion/Application to Practice: High reporting was related to strong support from management. Policies and procedures should clearly define WPV, the threshold for reporting, how to report, and how management will respond to the reports.

Prevalence of type II workplace violence among home healthcare workers: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Home healthcare workers (HHWs) provide medical and nonmedical services to home-bound patients. They are at great risk of experiencing violence perpetrated by patients (type II violence). Establishing the reliable prevalence of such violence and identifying vulnerable subgroups are essential in enhancing HHWs' safety. We, therefore, conducted meta-analyses to synthesize the evidence for prevalence and identify vulnerable subgroups. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for journal articles published between 1 January 2005 and 20 March 2019. A total of 21 studies were identified for this study. Meta-analyses of prevalence were conducted to obtain pooled estimates. Meta-regression was performed to compare the prevalence between professionals and paraprofessionals. RESULTS: Prevalence estimates for HHWs were 0.223 for 12 months and 0.302 for over the career for combined violence types, 0.102 and 0.171, respectively, for physical violence, and 0.364 and 0.418, respectively, for nonphysical violence. The prevalence of nonphysical violence was higher than that of physical violence for professionals in 12 months (0.515 vs 0.135) and over the career (0.498 vs 0.224) and for paraprofessionals in 12 months (0.248 vs 0.086) and over the career (0.349 vs 0.113). Professionals reported significantly higher nonphysical violence for 12-month prevalence than paraprofessionals did (0.515 vs 0.248, P = .015). CONCLUSION: A considerable percentage of HHWs experience type II violence with higher prevalence among professionals. Further studies need to explore factors that can explain the differences in the prevalence between professionals and paraprofessionals. The findings provide support for the need for greater recognition of the violence hazard in the home healthcare workplace.