Organizational Justice and Collaboration Among Nurses as Correlates of Violent Assaults by Patients in Psychiatric Care
Abstract
Objectives:
This study tested the hypothesis that poor organizational justice and collaboration among nurses are associated with increased stress among nurses, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of violent assaults by patients.
Methods:
A cross-sectional survey was conducted of nurses in 90 psychiatric inpatient wards in five hospital districts and one regional hospital in Finland. A total of 758 nurses (registered nurses or enrolled/mental health nurses) responded to the survey. Self-administered postal questionnaires were used to assess organizational justice, collaboration, nurses’ stress, and violent assaults by patients. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used in model testing.
Results:
SEM did not support a role for stress in mediating between organizational justice, collaboration between nurses, and violent assaults by patients, given that stress levels were not dependent to a significant degree on organizational justice, nor were patients’ assaults dependent on stress levels. However, low organizational justice and poor collaboration between nurses were associated with increased reports of violent assaults by patients in psychiatric inpatient settings (p<.05 for both). The model explained 5.7% of violent assaults at nearly significant levels (p=.052).
Conclusions:
These findings suggest that organizational justice, collaboration between staff members, and violent assaults by patients are linked in psychiatric inpatient settings. Evaluating a variety of factors, including issues related to organizational justice and collaboration among nurses, may be useful to minimize assaults by patients in psychiatric settings.
Factors predicting violent assaults on staff by patients in psychiatric inpatient settings are poorly understood. Some studies suggest that the risk of committing assaults is increased among patients with certain diagnoses, such as schizophrenia (1,2), affective disorder (3), and impulse control disorder (4). Other patient characteristics, such as being male (2), having a history of violence (3,5) or substance abuse (2,3), having sleeping problems (6) or having poor self-reflective skills (5), have also been associated with assaults.
However, patient characteristics may explain only a proportion of violent assaults (7). Other factors may increase the risk of being subjected to violent assaults, such as shift work (8,9) and a fixed schedule of night work (10), poor information flow among coworkers (8), patient overcrowding (11), and uncertainty among nurses regarding treatment (9). Nurses’ characteristics, such as being male (8,9), being young (8,9,12), having a lower level of qualifications (9,12), or having less training (12) or work experience (12,13), may also be associated with an increased risk of being subjected to assaults. One qualitative study reported that when nurses feel pressured at work, distractions or miscommunications between patients and staff may arise, which may result in patient assaults (14). This observation supports earlier findings that have associated high job strain, psychological distress (15), job demands (16), time pressure at work (9), and problems in staff-patient interaction (17,18) with patient assaults. Likewise, workplace support (15), interpersonal relationships between staff (8), quality of teamwork (9), and organizational justice (15) may play a role in patient assaults.
Justice refers to an action or decision that is understood to be morally right on the basis of ethics, religion, fairness, equity, or law (19). Organizational justice, originally derived from equity theory (20), refers to an employee’s perception of his or her organization’s behaviors, decisions, and actions and how these influence the employee’s own attitudes and behaviors at work (21). Previous research has shown that low organizational justice causes increases in employees’ stress levels (22,23), intragroup conflicts (24) and work group misbehavior (25). Poor teamwork creates inadequate program organization, which results in higher levels of stress among nurses (26) and may cause additional assaults on psychiatric wards (7,27).
Despite inconsistency in the literature about the causes of patient violence, the topic has attracted constant attention from researchers (8,28). It has been suggested as one of the main reasons for decreased commitment (8,9) to an organization among staff, for the intention of leaving the profession (9,29), as well as for accidents, disability, death, absenteeism (29), negative feelings (30), lower job satisfaction (29) and burnout (9) among staff members. Given that patient violence toward nurses in psychiatric settings is a complex and multidimensional problem (7), there is an urgent need to identify the factors contributing to its prevalence.
In this cross-sectional survey study, we developed a hypothesis that extended the ideas from existing research on the interaction of organizational justice, collaboration between nurses, nurses’ stress, and patient violence. On the basis of this hypothesis, we formulated and tested a model using the following assumptions. First, the perception of low organizational justice by nurses is associated with increased stress, which in turn is associated with an increased number of violent assaults by patients. Second, low organizational justice is associated with poor collaboration among nurses. Third, poor collaboration among nurses is associated with increased stress, which in turn is associated with increased numbers of violent assaults by patients.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
Participants were selected from the Finnish Public Sector (FPS) study cohort, which includes employees in ten towns and six hospital districts. Employers' records are used to identify eligible employees for nested survey cohorts that have been sent questionnaires by mail or e-mail every four years since 2000. For our study, we used a subset of FPS cross-sectional questionnaire data collected in 2012 from five of the nation’s 20 hospital districts and one regional hospital providing specialized psychiatric care. Eligible participants were nurses (registered nurses and licensed practical nurses) working on the 90 psychiatric inpatient wards operational at the time of the survey (N=1,033). Of these, 758 (73%) responded to the survey in Finnish measuring psychosocial work environment and patient assaults, which was part of the FPS questionnaire survey exploring behavioral and psychosocial factors and health. The Ethics Committee of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District approved the study. The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed.
Measures
The occurrence of violent assaults by patients was surveyed retrospectively with a measure developed for the purposes of the FPS study (11). Respondents are asked whether they had encountered any of the four listed types of violent incidents at work (verbal threats; physical violence, such as hitting or kicking; assaults on ward property, such as throwing objects; and armed threats during the past year (yes=1, no=0). Respondents also indicated the month in which the exposure occurred, from 1, January, to 12, December. The occurrence of violent assaults by patients was combined into a sum score by calculating the number of months in which any of the four types of violence had occurred during the past 12 months (range 0–48). In this study, the internal consistency of the scale was respectable (.77), as measured by the Kuder-Richardson formula.
Organizational justice was measured by using a questionnaire of procedural and relational justice adopted from Moorman’s organizational justice measure (31,32). Procedural justice refers to the extent that decision-making procedures include input from all parties affected, are consistently applied, are accurate, suppress bias, and are correctable and ethical. Relational justice refers to considerate, polite, and fair treatment of individuals (33). The questionnaire measures respondents’ current opinions on procedural justice (seven items) and relational justice (six items) at their organization on a 5-point scale, from 1, totally disagree, to 5, totally agree, with higher scores indicating better organizational justice. A mean scale score was calculated for both scales by averaging the scores on each item. The instrument has been used with Finnish health care staff (34), and its internal consistency has been strong (procedural justice, α=.90 [32], α=.80 [35]; relational justice, α=.81 [32], α=.90 [35]). In our data, the internal consistency of the scales remained strong (procedural justice, α=.94; relational justice, α=.91).
Collaboration was measured by using two subscales derived from the 14-item Team Climate Inventory (TCI) (36,37). Participative safety, with four items, measures the extent to which “involvement in decision-making is motivated and reinforced while occurring in an environment which is perceived as interpersonally nonthreatening.” Support for innovation, with three items, refers to the “expectation, approval, and practical support of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing things in the work environment” (38). Items are rated from 1, totally disagree, to 5, totally agree, with higher scores indicating better collaboration. A mean scale score was calculated by averaging the scores on each item. The subscales have been used with Finnish health care staff (39). The internal consistency of the subscales has been strong in earlier studies (participative safety, α=.87; support for innovation, α=.81 [40]) and remained strong in our data (participative safety, α=.86, support for innovation, α=.82).
Nurses’ psychological distress, or stress, was measured with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), which measures minor psychiatric morbidity (41). Respondents rate the extent to which they have experienced the symptoms of distress in the past few weeks, from 0, not at all, to 3, much more than usual, with higher scores indicating greater stress. A mean scale score was calculated by averaging the scores on each item.
The scale has previously been used as an indicator of stress (42–45). The GHQ-12 has been used with Finnish health care staff (46) and has been validated in the Finnish population (47). The internal consistency of the scale has been strong (α=.90 [48], α=.85 [49]), and it remained strong in our data (α=.88).
All instruments (organizational justice scale, the TCI, and the GHQ-12), which were originally written in English, had been translated to Finnish before this study.
Data Analysis
Our proposed model consisted of organizational justice, collaboration among nurses, stress, and patient violent assaults. The model construction is described in model 1 of Figure 1. Stress was considered as a mediator between the two factors (organizational justice and collaboration) and violent assaults by patients. The model was encoded into a multiple regression equation by arrows indicating the relationships between specific factors. The fit of the model was determined by using structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimations to test the hypothesized model. SEM was chosen because it is suitable for confirmatory testing of hypothesized models that are supported by either theories or empirical research. Criteria for goodness of fit of the model included nonsignificant chi-square statistics as well as findings for the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square test is an absolute test of model fit, so the model is rejected in case of p<.05. CFI values may range between 0 and 1, with values close to 1 indicating very good fit (50); in this study the CFI was set at >.95. Further, a TLI index close to 1.0 and RMSEA values <.05 were set as criteria for a fit model (51). SRMR, the most sensitive index for detecting misspecified latent structures or factor covariances, was set at ≤.08 (51). The model’s ability to explain assaults was assessed by using the coefficient of determination (R2) (52). Mplus was used for the SEM, and SPSS, version 21, was used for the other analyses.
FIGURE 1. The role of stress (STR) as a mediator of the effect of organizational justice (OJ) and collaboration (COLL) among nurses on violent assaults (VA) by patients (model 1) and the effect of omitting stress from the model (model 2)a
a RJ, relational justice; PJ, procedural justice; PS, participative safety; SI, support for innovation. Latent variables are depicted as ovals, and observed variables are depicted as rectangles.
Results
Descriptive Characteristics
The majority of participants were female (74%) registered nurses (58%) who worked full-time (95%) on a permanent employment contract (78%). The majority had been exposed to verbal threats (59%, N=424) during the past year; 46% (N=338) reported assaults on ward property, 35% (N=251) reported exposure to physical violence, and 5% (N=34) reported receiving armed threats. Demographic and work-related information about the participants is presented in Table 1.
| Characteristic | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Age (M±SD) | 43.96±10.95 | |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 558 | 74 |
| Male | 200 | 26 |
| Marital status | ||
| Married or cohabiting | 568 | 75 |
| Divorced or separated | 89 | 12 |
| Single | 92 | 12 |
| Widowed | 7 | 1 |
| Professional status | ||
| Registered nurse | 436 | 58 |
| Licensed practical nurse | 241 | 32 |
| Head nurse | 81 | 10 |
| Employment | ||
| Permanent | 592 | 78 |
| Fixed term | 166 | 22 |
| Nature of job | ||
| Full-time | 722 | 95 |
| Part-time | 36 | 5 |
| Time of work | ||
| Day | 235 | 30 |
| Shift work without nights | 118 | 16 |
| Shift work with nights | 367 | 49 |
| Night | 28 | 4 |
| Other irregular work | 9 | 1 |
| Duration of employment (M±SD years) | ||
| Current organization | 9.14±8.78 | |
| Current position | 8.01±8.67 |
Table 2 presents the mean±SD scores and internal consistency values for each observed variable (participative safety, support for innovation, relational justice, procedural justice, nurses’ psychological distress, and violent assaults by patients) as well as correlations between the observed variables.
| Score | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | M | SD | α | PS | SI | RJ | PJ | STR | VA |
| PSa | 3.7 | .80 | .86 | — | |||||
| SIa | 3.3 | .82 | .82 | .606 | — | ||||
| RJa | 3.7 | .98 | .91 | .477 | .441 | — | |||
| PJa | 2.9 | .81 | .94 | .352 | .358 | .416 | — | ||
| STRb | 1.9 | .39 | .88 | –.186 | –.197 | –.100 | –.141 | — | |
| VAc | 4.6 | 8.37 | .77d | –.056 | –.024 | –.134 | –.108 | –.018 | — |
a
Possible scores for participative safety (PS), support for innovation (SI), relational justice (RJ), and procedural justice (PJ) range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating better collaboration among nurses (PS and SI) and better organizational justice (RJ and PJ).
b
Possible scores for nurses’ psychological distress (STR) in the past few weeks range from 0, not at all, to 3, much more than usual.
c
Possible scores range from 0 to 48, indicating the number of months in which a nurse experienced each of the four types of violent assaults (VA) by patients (verbal threats; physical violence, such as hitting or kicking; assaults on ward property, such as throwing objects; and armed threats) during the past 12 months.
d
Internal consistency of the observed variables was measured by the Kuder-Richardson formula.
Constructed Structural Equation Models
In the original model (model 1), stress was considered a mediator between organizational justice, collaboration, and patients’ assaults (Figure 1). That model was rejected because of poor model fit, indicated by significant chi-square values and RMSEA values (90% confidence interval [CI]=.03–.08). The role of stress as a mediating factor was also rejected because stress levels were not dependent to a significant degree on organizational justice, nor were patients’ assaults dependent on stress levels. Therefore, the explanation of assaults in model 1 did not reach statistical significance.
Based on these parameter estimates, we modified the model by removing the mediating factor of stress to achieve better goodness of fit (model 2 in Figure 1). Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used to compare the alternative models (53). The overall lowest values of AIC and BIC represent the best model fit (54). The results from the analysis of model 2 indicated a more acceptable model fit on all indices compared with model 1 (RMSEA, CI=.00–.05). AIC and BIC indices were lower in model 2 compared with model 1, also indicating a better fit for model 2. Furthermore, in model 2, relationships between factors were all statistically significant at the .05 level. Organizational justice was positively related to collaboration among nurses, suggesting that low organizational justice is associated with poor collaboration among nurses. Organizational justice was negatively related to assaults, suggesting that lower organizational justice is associated with more frequent assaults. Collaboration was positively related to assaults, which may indicate that better collaboration among nurses is associated with more frequent assaults. However, the correlations between the observed variables related to collaboration (participative safety and support for innovation) and assaults were negative (Table 2), indicating a negative relationship between collaboration and assaults. The association between collaboration and assaults might be affected by the strong associations between organizational justice and collaboration factors (p≤.001) and between organizational justice factors and assaults (p=.001), which could create a false-positive dependency. Therefore, we may assume that the relationship was negative, rather than positive, indicating that poor collaboration among nurses was associated with more frequent patient assaults. Model 2 explained 5.7% of patient assaults at nearly significant levels (p=.052).
Table 3 shows the goodness-of-fit indices and the coefficient of determination (R2) for the alternative models for explaining violent assaults by patients.
| Model | χ2 | p | df | CFI | TLI | AIC | BIC | SRMR | RMSEA | R2b | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.66 | .001 | 7 | .979 | .955 | 12,940.814 | 13,033.427 | .037 | .056 | .000 | .800 |
| 2 | 1.82 | .611 | 3 | 1.000 | 1.005 | 12,217.929 | 12,296.651 | .007 | .000 | .057 | .052 |
a
CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index; AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation
b
The coefficient of determination indicates the model’s ability to explain violent assaults by patients.
Discussion
To examine violent assaults by patients on psychiatric wards, we hypothesized that nurses’ stress was a mediator between other model factors (organizational justice and collaboration among nurses) and patient violent assaults, and we developed a model to test that hypothesis. However, stress was not related either to violent assaults by patients or to organizational justice, and therefore the mediating role of stress was not supported.
Although we are unaware of studies that are highly similar to ours, we assume that our results, surprisingly, are not likely to be in line with those of earlier studies. For example, in a cross-sectional study conducted among workers in the Italian public health care sector, indications were found that psychological disorders among staff, measured by the same questionnaire as used in our study, preceded certain types of violence toward staff (15). However, the study population, consisting of all professionals working in any specialty in the public health care sector, differed greatly from our study population, comprising only nurses working on psychiatric wards.
The very nature of the work performed by psychiatric nurses may explain the contradictory study results. For example, one study reported that nurses’ mental health status, as measured by the GHQ-12, was not associated with patient violence in psychiatric settings, whereas such an association was found in other settings (29). There may be several reasons for this discrepancy. It can be assumed, for example, that psychiatric nurses are more accustomed to dealing with aggressive patients compared with nurses in other medical fields. Also, the behavior of psychiatric nurses may not be as strongly affected by stress compared with that of nurses working in other specialties.
It is also possible that the instrument used in this study did not capture the dimensions of stress that have been previously documented to be associated with violence. For example, the Italian cross-sectional study found certain aspects of stress, such as job demands and poor workplace social support, as defined in Karasek’s model (55), to be risk factors for violence (15). These types of stress—increased job demands (15) and pressures (14) and lack of support in the workplace (15)—were not captured by the measure of psychological distress used in our study.
Our results regarding the association of poor collaboration among nurses and patient violence are in line not only with those of the Italian cross-sectional study concerning workplace support (15) but also with other findings (8,9). Quality of teamwork (9) and workplace interpersonal relationships (8) have also been associated with violence. Good collaboration among nurses may have a positive effect on the team’s ability to respond to violence and may add to an overall atmosphere of calm on the ward, which may reduce patient aggression.
Our findings regarding an association between lower perceptions of organizational justice by nurses and increased patient assaults are in accordance with those of an earlier study (15). However, the mechanisms remain unknown. Research has shown that perceptions of low justice negatively affect workers’ behavior in groups (25) and increase intragroup conflicts among nurses (24). Therefore, we could draw the tentative conclusion that low justice perceptions not only may negatively affect nurses’ behavior toward colleagues but also may contribute to poor staff-patient interactions and alter nurses’ behavior toward patients, which may be associated with increased patient assaults (18).
This study had limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevents us from making causal statements about the results. The fact that patient assaults were evaluated retrospectively, whereas other model variables were based on nurses’ current experiences, may have resulted in a reversal of the direction of causality proposed in the hypothesized model (for example, increased assaults may predict poor collaboration and low organizational justice rather than vice versa). Therefore, longitudinal research is needed to evaluate the impact of organizational justice and collaboration on patient assaults.
Second, relying on nurses’ retrospective recall of assaults may have caused some misclassifications. Staff may overestimate the frequency of assaults, for example, although other assessment methods—such as daily staff reports, standard instruments, and official incident reports (56–58)—may underreport assaults, irrespective of the severity of the assault (56). Staff may consider assaults part of their job (59) or feel embarrassed about being assaulted (60), which may increase underreporting. It has been suggested that self-reporting methods that rely on memory, like other types of assessment methods, are likely to underestimate the occurrence of assaults (61). However, the validity of our measurement for assessing the occurrence of assaults is supported by earlier studies that have found an increasing risk of self-reported physical assaults connected to patient overcrowding, a risk of violence in psychiatric settings (11), and an exceptionally high risk of exposure to mental abuse and physical violence among special education teachers compared with their colleagues in general education (62). In addition, the occurrence of aggression found in this study is quite similar to the findings of earlier studies (28,63).
Third, the model explained only a small amount of the variance in patient assaults, which might raise questions about the significance of the findings. However, we had no information on the most important predictors of aggression, such as patient characteristics or severity of the disease. Thus it is to be expected that the model would explain a small amount of variance in patient assaults. It should be noted that the associations between model factors were statistically significant. Thus the study contributed to the understanding of the phenomenon of patient violence toward psychiatric nursing staff, even though its purpose was not to make precise predictions about the role of various factors in assaults by patients.
Conclusions
Nurses’ perceptions of poor organizational justice and poor collaboration among nurses were found to be linked to increased patient assaults, whereas nurses’ stress, as measured by psychological distress, was not linked to increased patient assaults. Longitudinal research is needed to verify our findings and determine the direction of causality. Also, future research should attempt to clarify the mechanisms underlying the associations between nurses’ work-related stress and patient assaults in the context of psychiatric nursing, especially the aspects of stress that may increase the risk of assaults. In addition, the mechanisms underlying the association between nurses’ perceptions of organizational justice and patient aggression must be clarified.
Our findings suggest that evaluating a variety of factors, including organizational justice and collaboration-related issues, both on the frontline and at the administrative level, is important in minimizing patient assaults in psychiatric settings.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jaana Pentti, B.Sc., for preparing the data for analysis and Jouko Katajisto, M.Sc., for conducting the data analysis.
References
1.
Amoo G, Fatoye FO: Aggressive behaviour and mental illness: a study of inpatients at Aro Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Abeokuta. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 13:351–355, 2010
2.
Dack C, Ross J, Papadopoulos C, et al: A review and meta-analysis of the patient factors associated with psychiatric in-patient aggression. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 127:255–268, 2013
3.
Stewart D, Bowers L: Inpatient verbal aggression: content, targets and patient characteristics. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 20:236–243, 2013
4.
Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P, et al: Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009
5.
Ekinci O, Ekinci A: Association between insight, cognitive insight, positive symptoms and violence in patients with schizophrenia. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 67:116–123, 2013
6.
Kamphuis J, Dijk DJ, Spreen M, et al: The relation between poor sleep, impulsivity and aggression in forensic psychiatric patients. Physiology and Behavior 123:168–173, 2014
7.
Cutcliffe JR, Riahi S: Systemic perspective of violence and aggression in mental health care: towards a more comprehensive understanding and conceptualization: part 2. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 22:568–578, 2013
8.
Camerino D, Estryn-Behar M, Conway PM, et al: Work-related factors and violence among nursing staff in the European NEXT study: a longitudinal cohort study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 45:35–50, 2008
9.
Estryn-Behar M, van der Heijden B, Camerino D, et al: Violence risks in nursing—results from the European “NEXT” Study. Occupational Medicine 58:107–114, 2008
10.
Nabe-Nielsen K, Tüchsen F, Christensen KB, et al: Differences between day and nonday workers in exposure to physical and psychosocial work factors in the Danish eldercare sector. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 35:48–55, 2009
11.
Virtanen M, Vahtera J, Batty GD, et al: Overcrowding in psychiatric wards and physical assaults on staff: data-linked longitudinal study. British Journal of Psychiatry 198:149–155, 2011
12.
Flannery RB Jr, LeVitre V, Rego S, et al: Characteristics of staff victims of psychiatric patient assaults: 20-year analysis of the Assaulted Staff Action Program. Psychiatric Quarterly 82:11–21, 2011
13.
Privitera M, Weisman R, Cerulli C, et al: Violence toward mental health staff and safety in the work environment. Occupational Medicine 55:480–486, 2005
14.
Ward L: Ready, aim fire! Mental health nurses under siege in acute inpatient facilities. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34:281–287, 2013
15.
Magnavita N, Heponiemi T: Violence towards health care workers in a public health care facility in Italy: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 2012 (doi 10.1186/1472-6963-12-108)
16.
Demir D, Rodwell J: Psychosocial antecedents and consequences of workplace aggression for hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 44:376–384, 2012
17.
Wenzhi Cai, Ling Deng, Meng Liu, et al: Antecedents of medical workplace violence in South China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26:312–327, 2011
18.
Papadopoulos C, Ross J, Stewart D, et al: The antecedents of violence and aggression within psychiatric inpatient settings. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 125:425–439, 2012
19.
Tabibnia G, Satpute AB, Lieberman MD: The sunny side of fairness: preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry). Psychological Science 19:339–347, 2008
20.
Adams JS: Inequity in social exchange; in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol 2. Edited by Berkowitz L. New York, Academic Press, 1965
21.
Greenberg J: A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review 12:9–22, 1987
22.
Sutinen R, Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, et al: Organizational fairness and psychological distress in hospital physicians. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 30:209–215, 2002
23.
Dackert I: The impact of team climate for innovation on well-being and stress in elderly care. Journal of Nursing Management 18:302–310, 2010
24.
Almost J, Doran DM, McGillis Hall L, et al: Antecedents and consequences of intra-group conflict among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 18:981–992, 2010
25.
Priesemuth M, Arnaud A, Schminke M: Bad behavior in groups: the impact of overall justice climate and functional dependence on counterproductive work behavior in work units. Group and Organization Management 38:230–257, 2013
26.
Bowers L, Nijman H, Simpson A, et al: The relationship between leadership, teamworking, structure, burnout and attitude to patients on acute psychiatric wards. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 46:143–148, 2011
27.
Whittington R, Wykes T: An observational study of associations between nurse behaviour and violence in psychiatric hospitals. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 1:85–92, 1994
28.
Spector PE, Zhou ZE, Che XX: Nurse exposure to physical and nonphysical violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: a quantitative review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 51:72–84, 2014
29.
Merecz D, Rymaszewska J, Mościcka A, et al: Violence at the workplace—a questionnaire survey of nurses. European Psychiatry 21:442–450, 2006
30.
Needham I, Abderhalden C, Halfens RJ, et al: Nonsomatic effects of patient aggression on nurses: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 49:283–296, 2005
31.
Moorman R: Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology 76:845–855, 1991
32.
Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J: Organizational justice: evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health 92:105–108, 2002
33.
Kramer RM, Tyler TR: Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. London, Sage, 1996
34.
Heponiemi T, Kuusio H, Sinervo T, et al: Job attitudes and well-being among public vs private physicians: organizational justice and job control as mediators. European Journal of Public Health 21:520–525, 2011
35.
Elovainio M, Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, et al: Sleeping problems and health behaviors as mediators between organizational justice and health. Health Psychology 22:287–293, 2003
36.
Anderson N, West M: Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Occupational Behaviour 19:235–258, 1998
37.
Kivimaki M, Elovainio M: A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72:241–246, 1999
38.
West MA: The social psychology of innovation in groups; in Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Edited by West MA, Farr JL. Chichester, Wiley, 1990
39.
Virtanen M, Kurvinen T, Terho K, et al: Work hours, work stress, and collaboration among ward staff in relation to risk of hospital-associated infection among patients. Medical Care 47:310–318, 2009
40.
Heponiemi T, Elovainio M, Kouvonen A, et al: Ownership type and team climate in elderly care facilities: the moderating effect of stress factors. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68:647–657, 2012
41.
Goldberg D: Detecting Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. London, Oxford University Press, 1972
42.
Kunkler J, Whittick J: Stress-management groups for nurses: practical problems and possible solutions. Journal of Advanced Nursing 16:172–176, 1991
43.
Paterson B, Turnbull J, Aitken I: An evaluation of a training course in the short-term management of violence. Nurse Education Today 12:368–375, 1992
44.
Carson J, Cavagin J, Bunclark J, et al: Effective communication in mental health nurses: did social support save the psychiatric nurse? Nursing Times Research 4:31–42, 1999
45.
van Weert JC, van Dulmen AM, Spreeuwenberg PM, et al: The effects of the implementation of snoezelen on the quality of working life in psychogeriatric care. International Psychogeriatrics 17:407–427, 2005
46.
Elovainio M, Salo P, Jokela M, et al: Psychosocial factors and well-being among Finnish GPs and specialists: a 10-year follow-up. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 70:246–251, 2013
47.
Holi MM, Marttunen M, Aalberg V: Comparison of the GHQ-36, the GHQ-12, and the SCL-90 as psychiatric screening instruments in the Finnish population. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 57:233–238, 2003
48.
Virtanen M, Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, et al: From insecure to secure employment: changes in work, health, health related behaviours, and sickness absence. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60:948–953, 2003
49.
Ip WY, Martin CR: Psychometric properties of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in Chinese women during pregnancy and in the postnatal period. Psychology Health and Medicine 11:60–69, 2006
50.
Bentler PM: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107:238–246, 1990
51.
Hu L, Bentler P: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation Modeling 6:1–55, 1999
52.
Lewis-Beck M: R-Squared; in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. Edited by Lewis-Beck M, Bryman A, Liao T. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2004
53.
Kaplan D: Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Los Angeles, Sage, 2009
54.
Byrne BM: Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York, Routledge, 2012
55.
Karasek R, Choi B, Ostergren PO, et al: Testing two methods to create comparable scale scores between the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) and JCQ-like questionnaires in the European JACE Study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 14:189–201, 2007
56.
Hvidhjelm J, Sestoft D, Bjørner JB: The Aggression Observation Short Form identified episodes not reported on the Staff Observation Aggression Scale–Revised. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 35:464–469, 2014
57.
Tenneij NH, Goedhard LE, Stolker JJ, et al: The correspondence between the Staff Observation Aggression Scale–Revised and two other indicators for aggressive incidents. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 23:283–288, 2009
58.
Snyder LA, Chen PY, Vacha-Haase T: The underreporting gap in aggressive incidents from geriatric patients against certified nursing assistants. Violence and Victims 22:367–379, 2007
59.
Stevenson KN, Jack SM, O’Mara L, et al: Registered nurses’ experiences of patient violence on acute care psychiatric inpatient units: an interpretive descriptive study. BMC Nursing 14:35, 2015
60.
Benson A, Secker J, Balfe E, et al: Discourses of blame: accounting for aggression and violence on an acute mental health inpatient unit. Social Science and Medicine 57:917–926, 2003
61.
Iennaco JD, Dixon J, Whittemore R, et al: Measurement and monitoring of health care worker aggression exposure. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 18:3, 2013
62.
Ervasti J, Kivimäki M, Pentti J, et al: Work-related violence, lifestyle, and health among special education teachers working in Finnish basic education. Journal of School Health 82:336–343, 2012
63.
Chen WC, Hwu HG, Kung SM, et al: Prevalence and determinants of workplace violence of health care workers in a psychiatric hospital in Taiwan. Journal of Occupational Health 50:288–293, 2008
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Untitled, by Sam Francis, 1958. Watercolor on paper. Gift of Udo M. Reinach Estate, The Museum of Modern Art, New York City. ©2017 Sam Francis Foundation, California/Artists Rights Society, New York City. Digital image © The Museum of Modern Art/licensed by SCALA/Art Resource, New York City.
History
Received: 9 April 2016
Revision received: 1 September 2016
Accepted: 7 October 2016
Published online: 1 February 2017
Published in print: May 01, 2017
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
Suomen Akatemia10.13039/501100002341: 264944, 267727
Turun Yliopisto10.13039/501100005609:
Finnish Work Environment Fund: 111298, 115421
This study was funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (111298). The Finnish Public Sector study was supported by the Academy of Finland (Projects 264944 and 267727), the Finnish Work Environment Fund (115421) and the participating organizations.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).