Predictive Validity of Violence Screening Tools in Emergency and Psychiatric Services: A Systematic Review.

IF 5.4 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Sviatlana Kamarova, Simon R E Davidson, Christopher M Williams, Mariana Leite, Steven J Kamper
{"title":"Predictive Validity of Violence Screening Tools in Emergency and Psychiatric Services: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Sviatlana Kamarova, Simon R E Davidson, Christopher M Williams, Mariana Leite, Steven J Kamper","doi":"10.1177/15248380251358224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Violence against healthcare staff, including a threat or an act of violence toward people during their work, poses a physical and psychological risk to workers internationally. Screening is an important strategy in preventing violence against healthcare professionals. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools used to screen for violence and aggression risk toward healthcare workers in emergency and psychiatric departments (PD). Primary studies that examined the predictive validity of risk assessment tools for workplace violence were identified via a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. There were 62 eligible studies, ten of which had a lower risk of bias (RoB). Those studies with high RoB were primarily due to a failure to present calibration measures as part of the analysis. All included studies adopted a longitudinal design and were conducted in PDs. The ten highest-quality studies reported on eight different instruments, four of which showed acceptable to outstanding predictive performance. The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression and the Brøset Violence Checklist showed the best predictive performance; they were also validated in emergency departments and are best suited for short-term risk prediction. We recommend that the selection of a risk assessment tool should consider the following: (a) the target population, (b) the violence operationalization, and (c) the purpose of the monitoring. We note that the use of a screening tool should be a part of a multicomponent strategy to ensure staff safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":54211,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","volume":" ","pages":"15248380251358224"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251358224","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Violence against healthcare staff, including a threat or an act of violence toward people during their work, poses a physical and psychological risk to workers internationally. Screening is an important strategy in preventing violence against healthcare professionals. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools used to screen for violence and aggression risk toward healthcare workers in emergency and psychiatric departments (PD). Primary studies that examined the predictive validity of risk assessment tools for workplace violence were identified via a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. There were 62 eligible studies, ten of which had a lower risk of bias (RoB). Those studies with high RoB were primarily due to a failure to present calibration measures as part of the analysis. All included studies adopted a longitudinal design and were conducted in PDs. The ten highest-quality studies reported on eight different instruments, four of which showed acceptable to outstanding predictive performance. The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression and the Brøset Violence Checklist showed the best predictive performance; they were also validated in emergency departments and are best suited for short-term risk prediction. We recommend that the selection of a risk assessment tool should consider the following: (a) the target population, (b) the violence operationalization, and (c) the purpose of the monitoring. We note that the use of a screening tool should be a part of a multicomponent strategy to ensure staff safety.

暴力筛查工具在急诊和精神科服务中的预测有效性:一项系统综述。
对医务人员的暴力行为,包括在其工作期间对他人的威胁或暴力行为,对国际上的工作人员构成了身心风险。筛查是预防针对保健专业人员的暴力行为的一项重要战略。本系统综述的目的是综合用于筛查急诊和精神科医护人员暴力和攻击风险的风险评估工具的预测有效性的证据。通过对Medline、PsycINFO、Embase和Cochrane数据库的系统搜索,初步研究了工作场所暴力风险评估工具的预测有效性。有62项符合条件的研究,其中10项具有较低的偏倚风险(RoB)。那些具有高RoB的研究主要是由于未能将校准措施作为分析的一部分。所有纳入的研究均采用纵向设计,并在pd中进行。10项最高质量的研究报告了8种不同的工具,其中4种显示出可接受的杰出预测性能。情景攻击动态评价和Brøset暴力量表的预测效果最好;它们也在急诊科得到了验证,最适合于短期风险预测。我们建议风险评估工具的选择应考虑以下因素:(a)目标人群,(b)暴力操作,(c)监测的目的。我们注意到,使用筛选工具应成为确保工作人员安全的多要素战略的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
7.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is devoted to organizing, synthesizing, and expanding knowledge on all force of trauma, abuse, and violence. This peer-reviewed journal is practitioner oriented and will publish only reviews of research, conceptual or theoretical articles, and law review articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is dedicated to professionals and advanced students in clinical training who work with any form of trauma, abuse, and violence. It is intended to compile knowledge that clearly affects practice, policy, and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信