Contribution of Critical Events and Chronic Stressors to PTSD Symptoms Among Psychiatric Workers
Abstract
Objective:
Psychiatric staff are exposed to critical events (e.g., violence, physical threats) in the workplace and thus are at risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The authors examined the prevalence of PTSD symptoms among psychiatric hospital staff in Canada and the role of potentially traumatic critical events and chronic stressors (e.g., witnessing patients engaging in self-injury) in affecting psychiatric staff’s mental health.
Methods:
The authors analyzed cross-sectional survey data from 761 psychiatric staff (69% female, 57% nursing, 64% with more than 5 years of experience in mental health). The analysis focused on questions about exposure to critical events and chronic stressors.
Results:
Sixteen percent of participants met a screening cutoff score on the PTSD Checklist-5, a self-report PTSD measure. Almost all staff (96%) had been directly or indirectly exposed to at least one critical event, and two-thirds (67%) had been directly exposed to at least one such event. Nursing staff reported higher scores than did allied health staff. A regression analysis yielded a model in which both critical events and chronic stressors were significant contributors to the variance in PTSD symptoms; professional discipline and gender did not explain additional variance.
Conclusions:
PTSD is a significant concern for psychiatric staff. Exposure to violence and chronic stressors were found to contribute significantly and independently to explaining PTSD symptom checklist scores.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Sixteen percent of participants met the cutoff score for self-report screening on the PTSD Checklist.
•
Symptoms were statistically and independently explained by both exposure to critical events (e.g., physical assault) and chronic stressors (e.g., constant screaming).
•
Professional discipline and gender did not contribute additional explanatory power.
Work-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has received widespread attention among military personnel, first responders, and emergency health care workers, whose jobs put them at elevated risk for the condition (1, 2). Institutional health care workers, however, face PTSD rates similar to those faced by emergency responders after natural disasters, epidemics, or violence (3). Among nursing staff, trauma-related disorders can lead to compassion fatigue (4), reduced productivity (5), disengagement from patient care (6), patient falls, medication errors, and overall lower quality of care (7). Workplace-related trauma symptoms have been associated with experiencing or witnessing violence (8), including among nurses in hospital and community health care settings (5, 9, 10). In this study, we examined PTSD symptoms among hospital-based psychiatric nurses and other clinical staff.
Violence may be particularly common in psychiatric settings (11). One review reported that 30% to 76% of psychiatric workers have been assaulted during their careers (12). However, little is known about psychiatric staff’s vulnerability to PTSD. In a survey of inpatient ward staff at one Canadian psychiatric hospital, most (82%) reported exposure to violence, which was related to self-reported PTSD symptoms (13). Among 201 mental health staff at a psychiatric hospital in Botswana, 35% had been assaulted during the past year, and 18% met criteria for PTSD; violence exposure was related to PTSD diagnosis (9). The effect of the type of violence (e.g., assault, threat, accident) and level of exposure (e.g., directly assaulted, witnessed assault, responded to assault) on PTSD symptoms has yet to be explored.
Most research on exposure to violence in health care institutions has focused on nurses (14), who have reported higher scores on a measure of PTSD symptoms than other staff (13). Nursing staff are also more likely than other workers to be exposed to more chronic sources of stress in terms of witnessing disturbing patient behaviors, such as constant screaming, physical resistance to care, and self-injury (13). However, it is unknown whether the frequency of exposure to such behavior affects PTSD symptoms. Nonnursing health care staff may also be assaulted (15) or indirectly exposed to traumatic events and to related risks of secondary trauma (16) and PTSD (9, 13). These findings suggest the need to broaden the scope of research to nonnursing disciplines and to explore the effect of exposure to both critical events and chronic stressors.
Even within the nursing profession, men are more likely than women to experience workplace violence (17). Men have a higher prevalence than women of exposure to most potentially traumatic critical events, excluding sexual assault, yet women are twice as likely as men to meet diagnostic criteria for PTSD, whether in epidemiologic samples or in samples selected for exposure to critical events (18). Among public safety personnel, more women than men screened positive for PTSD or any mental disorder (1). Among clinicians, women are more vulnerable to secondary trauma (16). In a previous study of gender and exposure to violence among mental health care providers, PTSD was associated with both exposure to violence and gender (9). Thus, there are substantial grounds for gender-based analyses of workplace violence and its effects.
The purpose of this study was to investigate exposure in the psychiatric workplace to critical events (violence, threats, or death) and chronic stressors in the course of patient care and the association of such events with self-reported PTSD symptoms. PTSD was not clinically diagnosed. We also examined whether gender and professional discipline were associated with exposure to critical events or chronic stressors, with the prevalence of PTSD symptoms, or with the relation between the two. We hypothesized that nursing staff would report more exposure to critical events than nonnursing staff and would score higher on a measure of PTSD symptoms (hypothesis 1), that men would report more exposure to critical events than women but would score lower on the measure of PTSD symptoms (hypothesis 2), and that symptoms would be statistically explained by exposure to critical events, exposure to chronic stressors, professional discipline, and gender (hypothesis 3).
Methods
We surveyed workers on inpatient psychiatric units at three psychiatric hospitals in Canada. The hospitals provided both forensic and nonforensic psychiatric inpatient services and served both urban and rural communities.
Sample
All staff working with inpatients were eligible to participate in the survey. We included nursing staff (registered nurses, practical nurses, and patient care assistants), physicians, allied health professionals (e.g., occupational therapists, psychologists, recreational therapists, and social workers), clinical managers, and staff who worked with inpatients in off-ward areas. The 761 participants (69% female) included 430 (57%) nursing staff and had worked in mental health for an average of 6 to 10 years. The 761 participants represented 62% of 1,230 estimated eligible staff.
Procedure
Research protocols were reviewed and approved by the hospitals’ institutional review boards. The secure online version of the survey was accessible for 2 months at each site in 2017–2018. We discussed the study with hospital administrators and clinical managers prior to releasing the survey, and then e-mailed survey invitations to the staff. We also attended inpatient units, where we encouraged staff to complete the survey with tablet computers or on hard copies. We offered all participants a $10 gift card and gave in-person participants a list of in-hospital and online mental health support resources.
Variables
After we explained the study procedures, participants checked a box to indicate consent. The survey began with questions about respondents’ number of years of work experience in mental health, professional discipline (nursing, allied health, or other), type of inpatient unit (forensic, nonforensic), and gender identity. All questions included “other” and “prefer not to answer” response options.
Critical events were defined based on clinical diagnostic criteria for PTSD in DSM−5 (19). We included eight events: physical assault by a patient with no physical injury sustained, physical assault by a patient that resulted in an injury or death, injury of a staff member while restraining a patient, sexual assault by a patient, threat of death or serious injury to staff, threat of death or serious injury to staff’s family, violent or accidental death, and a suicide or a near fatal attempt. For each item, participants responded: “It happened to me directly”; “I responded to the code or call for help”; “I witnessed it (by being present on the unit or any workplace location where you saw or heard the event or its effect on anyone involved)”; “I learned about it happening to a close colleague/friend at work”; “I was repeatedly exposed to details about it as part of my job (by investigating or reporting details of violent acts that resulted in serious injury)”; or “Does not apply to me.” We created a critical event score by summing the number of events experienced (range 0–8).
To elicit data on chronic stressors, we asked, “In the past year, while at work, how often were you exposed to the following behaviors by patients?” The list of 14 behaviors was taken from Hilton and colleagues’ (13) survey of disturbing behaviors by psychiatric patients: damaging the room, drinking from the toilet, eating harmful items, eloping, flooding the room, hoarding, resisting care physically, screaming constantly, injuring themselves, engaging in public sexual behavior, smearing feces, wandering, issuing verbal abuse or threats, and conducting acts of physical violence. Instead of asking whether the participant had ever experienced a behavior, we asked the participants to indicate the frequency of their experiences (0, never; 1, a few times a year or less; 2, once a month or less; 3, a few times a month; 4, once a week; 5, a few times a week; or 6, every day). We then counted the number of chronic stressors endorsed and also calculated a total chronic stressor frequency score.
Symptoms were measured by using the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5) (20), which has 20 self-report items rated 0, not at all, to 4, extremely, according to how much respondents have been bothered by each symptom during the past month. The PCL-5 yields symptom cluster subscores (re-experiencing, avoidance, negative cognitions and mood, and arousal); a total cutoff score of 33 has optimal diagnostic efficiency (21). To capture the DSM-5 symptom duration criterion of at least 1 month, we asked participants, “For how long have you been bothered by these difficulties?” Possible responses included “not at all,” “less than 7 days,” “7 days to 1 month,” and “more than 1 month.” We measured impairment in social, occupational, and other areas of functioning, consistent with diagnostic criteria, using section 4 of the Diagnostic Interview for Adjustment Disorder (DIAD) (22) adapted for self-report. Respondents rated the impact of signs and symptoms in the past week (0, no impairment, to 10, serious impairment) on housekeeping, job, study, close friendships, and social contacts. The DIAD has been shown to be a valid instrument for diagnosing adjustment disorders (22).
Results
Of 849 submitted surveys, we excluded 77 that were incomplete for critical events, chronic stressors, or the PCL-5 score; another 11 were excluded for inconsistent responding. Of the resulting total of 761, roughly equal numbers of participants had worked in mental health for 1 to 5 years (N=205, 27%), 11 to 20 years (N=191, 25%), and more than 20 years (N=161, 21%), with fewer having worked in mental health for 6 to 10 years (N=133, 18%) or for less than 1 year (N=64, 8%); seven (1%) did not answer the question about number of years spent working in mental health.
Nursing was the most common discipline reported (N=430, 57%), followed by allied health (N=203, 27%). The 107 (14%) participants who identified their discipline as “other,” and 21 (3%) who did not answer the question, were excluded from the analyses involving category of professional discipline. Most participants (N=524, 69%) reported being female, followed by 227 (30%) who reported being male. The 10 (1%) who reported other identity or did not answer the question about gender were excluded from the analyses involving gender.
Almost all staff (N=733, 96%) reported having been exposed to at least one critical event: a physical threat, assault, or death that may have constituted a traumatic event. Most staff (N=513, 67%) reported at least one direct exposure.
Eighty-six percent of the participants (N=655) reported exposure to at least one chronic stressor, most commonly verbal abuse, constant screaming, or physical resistance to care (Table 1). The count of chronic stressors and the total chronic stressor frequency score were significantly associated with exposure to any critical event (r=0.54 and r=0.48, respectively, p<0.001) and with the critical event score (r=0.31 and r=0.23, respectively, p<0.001). The remaining analyses of chronic stressors pertain to the chronic stressor count only.
| Participants with any exposure (N=761) | Frequency of exposure | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stressor | N | % | rb | M | SD | 95% CI | rb |
| Damaging the room | 576 | 76 | .307 | 1.62 | 1.45 | 1.52–1.73 | .466 |
| Drinking from the toilet | 385 | 51 | .342 | 1.20 | 1.69 | 1.08–1.32 | .368 |
| Eating harmful items | 446 | 59 | .288 | 1.10 | 1.34 | 1.01–1.20 | .380 |
| Elopement | 430 | 57 | .090 | .97 | 1.24 | .88–1.06 | .094 |
| Flooding the room | 441 | 58 | .281 | 1.12 | 1.34 | 1.03–1.22 | .368 |
| Hoarding | 600 | 79 | .276 | 2.69 | 2.15 | 2.53–2.84 | .384 |
| Physically resisting care | 630 | 83 | .226 | 2.73 | 2.07 | 2.58–2.87 | .344 |
| Screaming constantly | 635 | 83 | .224 | 3.09 | 2.21 | 2.93,3.25 | .284 |
| Self-injury | 607 | 80 | .256 | 2.11 | 1.79 | 1.98–2.24 | .397 |
| Public sexual behavior | 555 | 73 | .284 | 1.96 | 1.86 | 1.83–2.09 | .423 |
| Smearing feces | 487 | 64 | .315 | 1.76 | 1.92 | 1.62–1.90 | .397 |
| Wandering | 566 | 74 | .212 | 2.55 | 2.26 | 2.39–2.71 | .233 |
| Verbal abuse or threats | 692 | 91 | .186 | 3.67 | 2.05 | 3.53–3.82 | .452 |
| Physical violence | 624 | 82 | .279 | 2.39 | 1.85 | 2.25–2.52 | .428 |
| N of stressors | 26.64 | 17.44 | 25.33–27.95 | .378 | |||
| Total frequency scorec | 10.14 | 4.01 | 9.85–10.42 | .478 | |||
a
PCL-5, PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. Prevalence of chronic stressors was measured by the percentage of participants endorsing any exposure in the past year. Frequency of exposure was rated on a 7-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater frequency.
b
All correlations, p<.001, except exposure to any elopement and frequency of exposure to elopement, p<.05.
c
Sum of frequency scores for all 14 stressors (range of possible scores, 0–84).
Prevalence of PTSD Criteria
The mean±95% confidence interval of participants’ PCL-5 total score was 15.40±1.15 (Table 2), with a range of 0 to 80 (kurtosis=1.18, SE=0.18; skew=1.26, SE=0.09). Table 2 shows the participants’ PCL-5 cluster subscale scores. Nursing staff reported higher scores than allied health staff on the PCL-5 (18.18±1.58 versus 12.02±2.01; F=13.95, df=1 and 624, p<0.001, partial η2=0.022).
| Characteristic | M | SD | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total PCL-5 symptom score | 15.40 | 16.19 | 14.25–16.56 |
| Cluster B: re-experiencing | 4.21 | 4.60 | 3.88–4.53 |
| Cluster C: avoidance | 1.65 | 2.02 | 1.51–1.79 |
| Cluster D: negative cognitions and mood | 4.44 | 5.73 | 4.04–4.85 |
| Cluster E: arousal | 5.11 | 5.40 | 4.72–5.49 |
a
PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder. PCL-5, PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. Possible score ranges are as follows: total, 0–80; cluster B, 0–20; cluster C, 0–8; cluster D, 0–28; and cluster E, 0–24.
Sixteen percent of the participants (N=125) scored zero on the PCL-5, and 16% (N=118) met the screening cutoff score of at least 33. Nearly half (N=370, 49%) reported having been bothered by PTSD symptoms for more than 1 month. We calculated whether participants met the more stringent criteria for PTSD (reporting any critical event, PCL-5 score of at least 33, at least one symptom in each symptom cluster, symptom duration of over 1 month, and at least one impairment rated at least 5). By using this method, we determined that 71 participants (9%) met full criteria for PTSD, although we did not clinically diagnose PTSD.
Exposure to Critical Events and PCL-5 Symptoms
The critical event score was positively correlated with PTSD symptoms (r=0.405, p<0.001), as was each event (Table 3). Reported exposure to threats of death or serious injury to staff’s family and to sexual assault yielded higher mean PCL-5 scores than all other events except violent or accidental death (Figure 1). There were no significant differences in symptom scores by level of exposure (Figure 2).
| Happened to me directly | Responded | Witnessed | Learned about its happening to close colleague/friend | Repeatedly exposed to details | Any level of exposure | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of event | N | % | r | N | % | r | N | % | r | N | % | r | N | % | r | N | % | r |
| Physical assault by patient, no physical injury | 426 | 56 | .302 | 462 | 61 | .317 | 505 | 66 | .324 | 524 | 69 | .196 | 292 | 38 | .302 | 708 | 93 | .251 |
| Physical assault by patient, resulting in injury or death | 188 | 25 | .316 | 296 | 39 | .350 | 317 | 42 | .342 | 436 | 57 | .196 | 240 | 32 | .273 | 568 | 75 | .263 |
| Injured while restraining patient | 253 | 33 | .390 | 338 | 44 | .355 | 391 | 51 | .339 | 457 | 60 | .185 | 243 | 32 | .289 | 708 | 93 | .329 |
| Sexual assault by patient | 78 | 10 | .169 | 80 | 11 | .245 | 123 | 16 | .265 | 256 | 34 | .289 | 122 | 16 | .220 | 355 | 47 | .390 |
| Threat of death or serious injury to staff | 311 | 41 | .397 | 263 | 35 | .350 | 361 | 47 | .366 | 450 | 59 | .213 | 219 | 29 | .325 | 615 | 81 | .332 |
| Threat of death or serious injury to staff’s family | 208 | 27 | .362 | 137 | 18 | .281 | 218 | 29 | .336 | 278 | 37 | .294 | 146 | 19 | .279 | 403 | 53 | .382 |
| Violent or accidental death | — | — | — | 98 | 13 | .221 | 129 | 17 | .227 | 184 | 24 | .250 | 123 | 16 | .259 | 281 | 37 | .261 |
| Suicide or near fatal attempt | 90 | 12 | .158 | 197 | 26 | .284 | 207 | 27 | .272 | 322 | 42 | .201 | 192 | 25 | .237 | 493 | 65 | .278 |
a
All correlations, p<.001. PCL-5, PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.
FIGURE 1. Mean scores for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder among hospital psychiatric staff as a function of exposure to a critical event in the workplace, by type of eventa
aPossible scores range from 0 to 80, with higher scores indicating more symptoms and greater symptom severity. Vertical bars represent confidence intervals.
FIGURE 2. Mean scores for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder among hospital psychiatric staff as a function of level of exposure to critical eventsa
aPossible scores range from 0 to 80, with higher score indicating more symptoms and greater symptom severity. Vertical bars represent confidence intervals. Level of exposure was classified as direct (happened directly to participant), responded (participant responded to the code or call for help), witnessed (participant was present on the unit or any workplace location and saw or heard the event or its effect on anyone involved), learned (participant learned about the event from a close colleague/friend at work), and details (participant was repeatedly exposed to details about it as part of the job).
Contribution of Critical Events, Chronic Stressors, Gender, and Professional Discipline
The regression analysis of the effects of the critical event score, chronic stressor count, professional discipline, and gender on PCL-5 score yielded a model that explained 27% of the variance in PTSD symptoms (F=5.39, df=4 and 563, p<0.001, adjusted R2=0.274). The critical event score (β=0.224, t=5.41, p<0.001) and chronic stressor count (β=0.350, t=8.26, p<0.001) were significant contributors to the variance in symptoms. Neither professional discipline nor gender provided additional explanatory power.
The model used to analyze the effect of direct exposure to a critical event explained 21% of the variance in symptoms (F=43.30, df=4 and 563, p<0.001, adjusted R2=0.214). Exposure to critical events (β=0.295, t=7.03, p<0.001) and number of chronic stressors (β=0.246, t=6.14, p<0.001) were significant contributors to PTSD symptoms. Neither discipline nor gender provided additional explanatory power.
Discussion and Conclusions
Among 761 psychiatric staff surveyed, 16% met the PCL-5 screening cutoff score for PTSD. The mean score for the nursing staff, 18.18, is comparable with those of firefighters and municipal police in Canada (1). When we used more stringent criteria—experience of a critical event, symptoms in all four clusters of the PCL-5, symptom duration of longer than a month, and functional impairment—9% of participants met the criteria for PTSD. This finding indicates that the level of trauma and impairment among mental health care providers in the workplace is of concern. Our results provide an empirical basis for establishing mental health programs for staff in psychiatric settings that provide assessment and treatment of PTSD in addition to basic wellness activities.
PTSD symptoms were associated with exposure to critical events, including physical threats, assaults, or deaths. In addition, and to approximately the same extent, symptoms were associated with reports of chronic stressors, including witnessing patients damaging their rooms, drinking from the toilet, smearing feces, and engaging in public sexual behavior. Some chronic stressors were tied to violent events (e.g., staff injury incurred while removing patients from rooms). Indeed, total counts of critical events were significantly correlated with exposure to chronic stressors, showing that critical events punctuated an already stressed environment.
Nursing staff had higher PCL-5 symptom scores. Nursing staff have more opportunity for exposure to critical events, because they supervise patient activity during 24/7 shifts. However, neither discipline nor gender made a significant contribution to the regression models of the relation between PTSD symptoms and critical events and chronic stressors. It is possible that the need to maintain ongoing professional relationships with long-term patients who sometimes act violently, along with the cumulative effects of chronic stressors, may override any gender effect that might otherwise be present. Future research that further examines the influence of worker and workplace characteristics may help untangle these effects.
Strengths and Limitations
One strength of this study is our innovation in considering chronic stressors. Our finding that chronic stressors contribute as much as critical events to staff PCL-5 scores sets the stage for research into the influence of workplace characteristics on the development of PTSD following a traumatic event. Future research could develop psychometrically sound measures of chronic and critical exposures, compared with our rudimentary measures.
Our survey response rate (62%) was higher than that typically observed in workplace surveys, possibly as a result of having the support of both managers and union leaders. We offered staff multiple opportunities and platforms in which to participate in the survey, including an optional paper version, and we intentionally surveyed staff representing different catchment areas (urban versus more rural), psychiatric unit security level (forensic versus nonforensic), and hospital size. However, not all staff participated, and the experiences of those who participated may have differed from those who did not participate, introducing the risk of sample bias. For example, staff who were on leave because of PTSD symptoms or injuries resulting from a workplace incident were not recruited for this study.
As in any study relying on self-report, there is a risk of socially desirable responding, which could lead to minimization or exaggeration of symptoms. Our efforts to assure participant anonymity helped to mitigate this risk. For example, we used categorical rather than continuous response options (e.g., by collapsing all allied health professions into one category and using 5-to-10-year ranges for work experience), and we provided tablet computers for online survey completion so that participants could not be identified by having logged in from their workplace computer.
We did not capture whether PTSD symptoms may have been due to medication, substance use, or other illness. Therefore, the proportion of psychiatric staff satisfying diagnostic criteria for PTSD may be overestimated; further research that uses the exclusion criteria would be of value. Also, we did not control for nonwork exposures and stressors that may have evoked endorsement of PCL-5 symptoms, so the proportion of psychiatric staff satisfying the diagnostic criteria for PTSD may overestimate work-related PTSD. Future research that includes and controls for critical events unrelated to the workplace would be of value.
Implications for Research and Practice
The amount of exposure to critical events reported in this survey of psychiatric staff warrants attention to prevention and protection measures. Almost all staff reported exposure to a physical threat, assault, or death, and two-thirds reported that such events had happened directly to them. The substantial literature on violence risk assessment and management (14, 23) can inform violence risk reduction in psychiatric hospitals. There is less evidence about the management of threats to staff or their families, which were related to elevated PCL-5 scores in our study. Threats are of particular concern because, although they were among the most common events reported by our participants, they are less systematically recorded and incur less intervention than acts of physical violence. When evaluating efforts to reduce patient aggression, it may be worthwhile to monitor concomitant improvements in staff mental health.
The contribution of both critical events and chronic stressors to PTSD symptoms suggests that workplace interventions may be needed to address cumulative effects of multiple stressors. Emerging evidence suggests that staff training programs can increase personal resilience (24, 25), and such interventions have been recommended for nurses (26). Environmental changes to reduce patients’ behavioral challenges, combined with access for staff to mental health professionals qualified to assess and treat PTSD, could benefit both staff and patients.
Whether psychiatric staff members succumb to PTSD may depend not only on exposure to challenging behaviors by patients with acute or chronic illness, but also on workplace characteristics and interactions with coworkers and managers (e.g., physical security, training, trust, procedures for responding to critical events). Future research should examine the relative roles of such variables. We are currently extending this work with an examination of staff’s use of mental health support services and structural and attitudinal barriers to accessing such services.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, and the Registered Nursing Association of Ontario for their support and participation in the activities described in this article; the research participants and Rebecca Harris for research assistance; and Della Saunders for comments on an earlier version of this article.
Footnote
The views, findings, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of WorkSafeBC, the Government of Ontario, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, or the Registered Nursing Association of Ontario.
References
1.
Carleton RN, Afifi TO, Turner S, et al: Mental disorder symptoms among public safety personnel in Canada. Can J Psychiatry 2018; 63:54–64
2.
Wilson S, Guliani H, Boichev G: On the economics of post-traumatic stress disorder among first responders in Canada. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 2016; 1:26–31
3.
Robertson N, Perry A: Institutionally based health care workers’ exposure to traumatogenic events: systematic review of PTSD presentation. J Trauma Stress 2010; 23:417–420
4.
Lauvrud C, Nonstad K, Palmstierna T: Occurrence of post traumatic stress symptoms and their relationship to professional quality of life (ProQoL) in nursing staff at a forensic psychiatric security unit: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7:31
5.
Gates DM, Gillespie GL, Succop P: Violence against nurses and its impact on stress and productivity. Nurs Econ 2011; 29:59–66
6.
Forté L, Lanctôt N, Geoffrion S, et al: Experiencing violence in a psychiatric setting: generalized hypervigilance and the influence of caring in the fear experienced. Work 2017; 57:55–67
7.
Karanikola M, Giannakopoulou M, Mpouzika M, et al: Dysfunctional psychological responses among intensive care unit nurses: a systematic review of the literature. Rev Esc Enferm USP 2015; 49:847–857
8.
MacDonald HA, Colotla V, Flamer S, et al: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the workplace: a descriptive study of workers experiencing PTSD resulting from work injury. J Occup Rehabil 2003; 13:63–77
9.
Olashore AA, Akanni OO, Molebatsi K, et al: Post-traumatic stress disorder among the staff of a mental health hospital: prevalence and risk factors. S Afr J Psychiatr 2018; 24:1222
10.
Richter D, Berger K: Post-traumatic stress disorder following patient assaults among staff members of mental health hospitals: a prospective longitudinal study. BMC Psychiatry 2006; 6:15
11.
Gunaydin N, Kutlu Y: Experience of workplace violence among nurses in health-care settings. J Psychiatr Nurs. 2012; 3:1–6
12.
Hallett N, Huber JW, Dickens GL: Violence prevention in inpatient psychiatric settings: systematic review of studies about the perceptions of care staff and patients. Aggress Violent Behav 2014; 19:502–514
13.
Hilton NZ, Ham E, Dretzkat A: Psychiatric hospital workers’ exposure to disturbing patient behavior and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Can J Nurs Res 2017; 49:118–126
14.
Wassell JT: Workplace violence intervention effectiveness: a systematic literature review. Saf Sci 2009; 47:1049–1055
15.
Nikathil S, Olaussen A, Gocentas RA, et al: Review article: workplace violence in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta analysis. Emerg Med Australas 2017; 29:265–275
16.
Baum N: Secondary traumatization in mental health professionals: a systematic review of gender findings. Trauma Violence Abuse 2016; 17:221–235
17.
Guay S, Goncalves J, Jarvis J: A systematic review of exposure to physical violence across occupational domains according to victims' sex. Aggress Violent Behav 2015;25:133–141
18.
Tolin DF, Foa EB: Sex differences in trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder: a quantitative review of 25 years of research. Psychol Bull 2006; 132:959–992
19.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
20.
Blevins CA, Weathers FW, Davis MT, et al: The Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM‐5 (PCL‐5): development and initial psychometric evaluation. J Trauma Stress 2015; 28:489–498
21.
Wortmann JH, Jordan AH, Weathers FW, et al: Psychometric analysis of the PTSD Checklist-5 (PCL-5) among treatment-seeking military service members. Psychol Assess 2016; 28:1392–1403
22.
Cornelius LR, Brouwer S, de Boer MR, et al: Development and validation of the Diagnostic Interview Adjustment Disorder (DIAD). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2014; 23:192–207
23.
Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL, et al: Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2015
24.
Joyce S, Shand F, Tighe J, et al: Road to resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis of resilience training programmes and interventions. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e017858
25.
Robertson IT, Cooper CL, Sarkar M, et al: Resilience training in the workplace from 2003 to 2014: a systematic review. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2015;88:533–562
26.
Foster K, Cuzzillo C, Furness T: Strengthening mental health nurses’ resilience through a workplace resilience programme: a qualitative inquiry. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2018; 25:338–348
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 3 May 2019
Revision received: 23 July 2019
Accepted: 12 September 2019
Published online: 4 December 2019
Published in print: March 01, 2020
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
This research was supported by funds from WorkSafeBC through its Innovation at Work program and from the Ontario Ministry of Labour through its Research for the Workplace program.
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/EPUBGet Access
Login 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.).