Management of the aggressive emergency department patient: non-pharmacological perspectives and evidence base.

IF 1.5 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Open Access Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2019-11-12 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAEM.S192884
Sandra K Richardson, Michael W Ardagh, Russell Morrison, Paula C Grainger
{"title":"Management of the aggressive emergency department patient: non-pharmacological perspectives and evidence base.","authors":"Sandra K Richardson,&nbsp;Michael W Ardagh,&nbsp;Russell Morrison,&nbsp;Paula C Grainger","doi":"10.2147/OAEM.S192884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Aggression in the Emergency Department (ED) remains an ongoing issue, described as reaching epidemic proportions, with an impact on staff recruitment, retention, and ability to provide quality care. Most literature has focused on the definition (or lack of) core concepts, efforts to quantify the phenomenon or provide an epidemiological profile. Relatively little offers evidence-based interventions or evaluations of the same.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify the range of suggested practices and the evidence base for currently recommended actions relating to the management of the aggressive Emergency Department patient.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meta-synthesis of existing reviews of violence and aggression in the acute health-care setting, including management of the aggressive patient, was undertaken. This provided the context for critical consideration of the management of this patient group in the ED and implications for clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An initial outline of issues was followed by a systematic search and 15 reviews were further assessed. Commonly identified interventions are grouped around educational, interpersonal, environmental, and physical responses. These actions can be focused in terms of overall responses to the wider issues of violence and aggression, targeted at the pre-event, event, or post-event phase in terms of strategies; however, there is a very limited evidence base to show the effectiveness of strategies suggested.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>The lack of evidence-based intervention strategies leaves clinicians in a difficult situation, often enacting practices based on anecdote rather than evidence. Local solutions to local problems are occurring in a pragmatic manner, but there needs to be clarification and integration of workable processes for evaluating and disseminating best practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is limited evidence reporting on interventional studies, in addition to identification of the need for high quality longitudinal and evaluation studies to determine the efficacy of those responses that have been identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":45096,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"271-290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/OAEM.S192884","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAEM.S192884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Introduction: Aggression in the Emergency Department (ED) remains an ongoing issue, described as reaching epidemic proportions, with an impact on staff recruitment, retention, and ability to provide quality care. Most literature has focused on the definition (or lack of) core concepts, efforts to quantify the phenomenon or provide an epidemiological profile. Relatively little offers evidence-based interventions or evaluations of the same.

Aim: To identify the range of suggested practices and the evidence base for currently recommended actions relating to the management of the aggressive Emergency Department patient.

Methods: A meta-synthesis of existing reviews of violence and aggression in the acute health-care setting, including management of the aggressive patient, was undertaken. This provided the context for critical consideration of the management of this patient group in the ED and implications for clinical practice.

Results: An initial outline of issues was followed by a systematic search and 15 reviews were further assessed. Commonly identified interventions are grouped around educational, interpersonal, environmental, and physical responses. These actions can be focused in terms of overall responses to the wider issues of violence and aggression, targeted at the pre-event, event, or post-event phase in terms of strategies; however, there is a very limited evidence base to show the effectiveness of strategies suggested.

Clinical implications: The lack of evidence-based intervention strategies leaves clinicians in a difficult situation, often enacting practices based on anecdote rather than evidence. Local solutions to local problems are occurring in a pragmatic manner, but there needs to be clarification and integration of workable processes for evaluating and disseminating best practice.

Conclusion: There is limited evidence reporting on interventional studies, in addition to identification of the need for high quality longitudinal and evaluation studies to determine the efficacy of those responses that have been identified.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急诊科攻击性患者的管理:非药理学观点和证据基础。
引言:急诊科的侵略行为仍然是一个持续存在的问题,被描述为达到流行病的程度,对员工的招聘、留用和提供优质护理的能力产生了影响。大多数文献都集中在核心概念的定义(或缺乏)、量化现象或提供流行病学概况的努力上。相对而言,很少提供基于证据的干预或评估。目的:确定与攻击性急诊科患者管理相关的建议做法的范围和当前建议行动的证据基础。方法:对现有的急性医疗环境中的暴力和攻击性审查进行荟萃综合,包括对攻击性患者的管理。这为在ED中对该患者群体的管理进行批判性考虑以及对临床实践的影响提供了背景。结果:在对问题进行初步概述后,进行了系统搜索,并对15项审查进行了进一步评估。通常确定的干预措施围绕教育、人际关系、环境和身体反应进行分组。这些行动的重点可以是对更广泛的暴力和侵略问题作出全面回应,在战略方面针对事件前、事件或事件后阶段;然而,显示所建议的策略有效性的证据基础非常有限。临床意义:缺乏循证干预策略使临床医生处境艰难,通常根据轶事而非证据制定实践。地方问题的地方解决办法正在以务实的方式出现,但需要澄清和整合评估和传播最佳做法的可行程序。结论:除了需要高质量的纵向和评估研究来确定已确定的反应的疗效外,关于介入研究的证据报告有限。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Open Access Emergency Medicine
Open Access Emergency Medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
An Observational Study of Sexual Assaults in French Guiana During 2019-2020 [Letter]. Association of Emergency Department Length of Stay and Hospital Mortality in Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19. Utility of Common Bile Duct Identification on Biliary Ultrasound in Emergency Department Patients. Effect of a Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Driven vs Standard Diagnostic Pathway on 24-Hour Hospital Stay in Emergency Department Patients with Dyspnea-Protocol for A Randomized Controlled Trial. Accuracy of FAST-ED for Assessment Large Vessel Occlusion of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Emergency Department.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1