Instruments for Measuring Violence on Acute Inpatient Psychiatric Units: Review and Recommendations
Abstract
Objective:
Violence by patients against inpatient psychiatric unit staff is common, causing considerable suffering. Despite the Joint Commission’s 2018 requirement for behavioral health organizations to use standardized instruments, no identified gold standard measures of violence and aggression exist. Therefore, accurate data are lacking on the frequency of patient-to-staff violence to guide development of safer institutional clinical policies or to assess the impact of targeted interventions to reduce violence. To inform recommendations for developing standardized scales, the authors reviewed the scoring instruments most commonly used to measure violence in recent studies.
Methods:
A comprehensive literature search for violence measurement instruments in articles published in English from June 2008 to June 2018 was performed. Review criteria included use of instruments measuring patient-to-staff violence or aggression in acute, nonforensic, nongeriatric populations. Exclusion criteria included child or adolescent populations, staff-to-staff violence, and staff- or visitor-to-patient violence.
Results:
Overall, 74 studies were identified, of which 74% used structured instruments to measure aggression and violence on inpatient psychiatric units during the past 10 years. The instruments were primarily variants of the Observed Aggression Scale (OAS); 26% of the studies used unstructured clinical notes and researcher questionnaires. Major obstacles to implementing measurement instruments included time and workflow constraints and difficulties with use.
Conclusions:
In the past 10 years, OAS variants with evidence of validity and reliability that define aggression and violence have been consistently used. The authors propose that adapting the Modified OAS to collect real-time clinical data could help overcome barriers to implementing standardized instruments to quantify violence against psychiatric staff.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Staff on acute inpatient psychiatry units experience violence from patients that is pervasive, underreported, and inconsistently measured, and no gold standard instrument is available to measure this type of violence.
•
Studies of psychiatric inpatient violence often use unstructured and retrospective methods for measuring violence, which have limited validity and reliability.
•
Standardized measures would enable health care systems to use more accurate data to assess changes made to address violence and allow comparison of the effects of interventions and policies among institutions, regions, and countries.
•
Variants of the Observed Aggression Scale have been consistently used, are valid and reliable, clearly define aggression and violence, and may be adaptable for practical clinical use.
Health care workplace violence is a significant public health problem, yet for many reasons, eradicating it remains elusive. According to a 2016 review in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Healthcare workplace violence is an underreported, ubiquitous, and persistent problem that has been tolerated and largely ignored” (1). The statistics are startling: 75% of the annual 24,000 workplace assaults in the United States between 2011 and 2013 were in health care settings (2), and health care workers are 20% more likely than workers in any other industries to become victims of violence (3). Among health care workers, the risk for being a target of violence is highest for inpatient mental health care workers, including nurses; 75% of these incidents were violent assaults by patients (4, 5). These numbers do not capture the true incidence of violence, however, largely because of underreporting by as much as 70% (1). Further, there are no national data on verbal aggression such as threats, verbal abuse, hostility, and harassment toward staff by patients (1). Experienced by many health care workers on a daily basis, verbal aggression is the most common form of violence in health care (5, 6), yet it is the least likely to be reported or addressed in the workplace because it is seen as “part of the job” (7). Health care workplace violence has major consequences, because it leads to staff burnout, posttraumatic stress disorder, leaving the job, anxiety, and depression (8–10), even if the violence did not result in physical injury.
In an effort to address this serious public health issue, the U.S. Joint Commission required the use of standardized instruments to “measure outcomes for behavioral health organizations” as of January 2018 (11). The commission recommended that health care organizations “clearly define workplace violence and put systems into place . . . that enable staff to report workplace violence instances” as well as to “capture, track and trend all reports of workplace violence—including verbal abuse and attempted assaults when no harm occurred” (2). However, as Odes et al. (12) pointed out in a recent systematic review of the frequency of violence in inpatient psychiatric settings in the United States, different measurement approaches can lead to markedly divergent estimates of violence prevalence. The authors also identified the lack of consensus on the best tracking instruments as a critical gap in the workplace violence field. Without accurate data collected via standardized and validated measures, it is difficult to assess the impact of implementation of violence prevention and risk assessment efforts (12).
We undertook this review as part of a collaborative interdisciplinary effort at our acute psychiatric hospital to adhere to the Joint Commission’s requirements. Our goal for this work was to review recent literature to identify scoring instruments that document inpatient psychiatric violence and to assess the utility, reliability, and validity of the most commonly used measures. We describe preliminary use of the results obtained in this review in the Discussion section.
Methods
We comprehensively searched the literature in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases with the assistance of experienced librarians and Covidence systematic review software (13). Keywords for the searches included “inpatient psychiatric units,” “aggression,” “violence,” and “measurement.” (The full search details are included in an online supplement to this article.) The search was limited to articles published in English between June 2008 and June 2018 to capture the most current use of measures. One of the authors (L.A.M.) screened for potential studies by inspecting the title and abstract of retrieved articles and then reviewed the full text of the studies identified in this initial screen. In addition to articles obtained with this search strategy, the references of included articles were searched by hand for additional relevant studies to be incorporated into the review.
Included studies were those that measured observable, quantifiable, and violent behavior episodes at acute psychiatric hospitals by using scales, instruments, or other tools. We did not limit studies on the basis of their definitions of violence or aggression because no universally accepted definition of mental health–related aggression exists (14) and because the literature lacks consensus on defining the difference between aggression and violence (15). We defined routinely collected data, specially designed forms, and occurrence reports as data sources used for clinical purposes and for quality improvement or research studies, without reference to specific instruments that have been identified in the literature. In addition to counting frequency of use of measures in articles addressing inpatient psychiatric unit violence, we also noted and reported the characteristics of the more common measures (type of questions, mode of administration, length, and reliability).
Because the focus of this review was on scoring instruments for measuring violent incidents during relatively short psychiatric hospitalizations of acutely ill adult patients, exclusion criteria included studies of forensic and nonacute inpatient psychiatric settings, which tend to have longer lengths of stay, and of geriatric and child or adolescent populations. Studies of lateral violence (i.e., staff to staff), staff-to-patient and visitor-to-patient violence, and intimate partner violence were also excluded.
Results
The literature review generated 294 independent studies; review of their abstracts for exclusion criteria eliminated 189 studies, and full-text reviews and searches of bibliographies helped identify 85 studies meeting the inclusion criteria (see online supplement). We eliminated studies that used the same data for different analyses; details regarding removal of duplicates can be found in the online supplement. One study, Carr et al. (16), used three measures, and we counted each scoring instrument used in the study as a separate use of the measure: progress notes, Observed Aggression Scale (OAS) (17), and the Violent Incident Form (18). The final total was 74; Table 1 summarizes the review results.
| Instrument | N of studies | Reliability | Validity | Study that created instrument |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progress/nursing notes, questionnaires, occurrence reports | 19 | NR | NR | NA |
| Modified Overt Aggression Scale | 14 | Pearson’s r=.85–.94; reliability=.72 | Discriminative validity=71.9%; 4-factor structure | Kay et al., 1988 (21) |
| Staff Observation Aggression Scale–Revised (SOAS/SOAS-R) | 11 | ICC=.96; IRR=.61–.74 | Pearson’s r=.87 | SOAS, Palmstierna and Wistedt, 1987 (22); SOAS-R, Nijman et al., 1997 (23) |
| Overt Aggression Scale | 11 | ICC=.7–.87 | NR | Yudofsky et al., 1986 (17) |
| Aggression Observation Short Form | 2 | Compared with SOAS-R: verbal κ=.62; threat κ=.6; harm κ=.53 | NR; comparable with SOAS-R | Hvidhjelm et al., 2014 (20) |
| Retrospective Overt Aggression Scale | 1 | Pearson’s r=.96; ICC=.70–.87; Cronbach’s α=.75 | Correlates with OAS, NOSIE and BPRS | Sorgi et al., 1991 (19) |
| Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist | 5 | κ=.69; Cronbach’s α=.73 | Correlation between scores and record=.22–.24 | Bowers et al., 2003 (36) |
| Social Dysfunction and Aggression Scale | 2 | ICC=.97; Cronbach’s α=.79 | Convergence with Outward Aggression Scale and Global Assessment Scale | Wistedt et al., 1990 (24) |
| Violence Scale | 2 | Cronbach’s α=.91; reliability =.79; ICC=.98; IRR=.5-.7 | Construct validity reported | Morrison, 1993 (25) |
| Violent Incident Form | 2 | κ varied from .35 (staff reaction) to 1 (activity happening during violent event, aggressor, incident description) | NR | Arnetz et al., 1998 (18) |
| Report Form for Aggressive Behavior | 1 | κ=.84 | Kuder-Richardson coefficient=.71 | Bjørkly, 1997 (26) |
| Aggression Scale | 1 | NR | NR | Delgado-Escueta et al., 1991 (27) |
| Crisis Intervention Questionnaire | 1 | NR | NR | Amoo and Fatoye, 2010 (28) |
| Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) | 1 | Cronbach’s α=.89 | Correlation between AQ and extraversion | Buss and Perry, 1992 (29) |
| Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale–EC | 1 | Cronbach’s α=.86; ICC=.8–.9; IRR=.8; reliability=.6–.8 Spearman’s r=.73–.80 | One-factor structure; correlation between Clinical Global Impression of Severity and Agitation and Calmness Evaluation scale=.71–.73 | Montoya et al., 2011 (30) |
a
ICC, intraclass coefficient; IRR, interrater reliability; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.
Most Commonly Used Measures
Of the 15 measures identified through our review, the most frequently used instruments to measure violence on inpatient acute psychiatric units during the past 10 years were variants of the OAS, including the Retrospective Overt Aggression Scale (ROAS, also known as the OAS-M) (19), Aggression Observation Short Form (AOS) (20), Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) (21), and Staff Observation Aggression Scale (SOAS) and its revised version (SOAS-R) (22, 23), together accounting for 55 (74%) of the 74 studies using instruments to measure violence. Routinely collected data, including unstructured clinical notes, researcher questionnaires, special forms, and occurrence forms, were used in 19 (26%) of the 74 studies. The rest of the measures, except for the Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist (PCC) (N=5, 7%), were cited once or twice: Social Dysfunction and Aggression Scale (24), Violence Scale (25), Violent Incident Form (18), Report Form for Aggressive Behavior (26), Aggression Scale (27), Crisis Intervention Questionnaire (28), Aggression Questionnaire (29), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale–EC (30). Because we were interested in measures that were most frequently used, we focused our subsequent analyses on routinely collected data, special forms, and occurrence reports and on OAS, ROAS, MOAS, AOS, SOAS/SOAS-R, and the PCC instruments. Table 2 shows a comparison of the OAS variants and PCC in terms of domains measured, scoring, and use.
| Instrument | Domains | Scoring | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Aggression Scale | Verbal, object, self-, and physical aggression plus interventions used and duration | 1–4 for verbal, 2–5 for object, 3–6 for self-, and 3–6 for physical (weighted) aggression; 1–10 for intervention; ambiguous anchors describing aggressive acts | Completed for each incident |
| Retrospective Overt Aggression Scale/Overt Aggression Scale–Modified | Verbal, object, self-, and physical aggression; captures severity and frequency | 1–4 for verbal, 2–5 for object, 3–6 for self-, and 3–6 for physical (weighted) aggression; 0–4 for intervals; ambiguous anchors describing aggressive acts | Retrospective for the past 7 days |
| Modified Observed Aggression Scale | Verbal, object, self-, and physical aggression | 0–4 for each domain; weighted scores; total score range 0–100; detailed anchors describing aggressive acts | Retrospective for the past 7 days |
| Staff Observation Aggression Scale | Provocation, means used, target of aggression, consequences for target, measure to stop incident | 0–4 for means, aim and result with detailed anchors describing aggressive acts; total score range 0–12 | Completed for each incident |
| Staff Observation Aggression Scale–Revised | Provocation, means used, target of aggression, consequences for target, measure to stop incident, perceived severity | 0–2 for provocation, 0–3 for means, 0–4 for target, 0–3 for consequences for victim, and 0–2 measures to stop incident; detailed anchors describing aggressive acts; total score range 0–22; visual analog scale rating perceived severity from 0 to 100 | Completed for each incident |
| Aggression Observation Short Form | Verbal aggression, threatening behavior, harm | 0 if absent and 1 if present; total score range 0–3; limited definitions of aggressive acts | Completed for each patient at end of each shift |
| Patient-Staff Conflict Checklist | Aggression, suicide attempts, self-harm, demographic characteristics, rule breaking, substance use, elopement, medication-related behavior, containment measures, frequency of conflict and containment events | Detailed definitions of aggressive acts; total conflict score sum; total containment score sum | Completed for each shift (not per patient) |
a
Adapted from Allen et al. (15).
The OAS, ROAS, MOAS, AOS, SOAS/SOAS-R, and PCC instruments were created originally for use on inpatient psychiatric units (17, 21–23, 31–33). The OAS, ROAS, and MOAS use Likert subscales to measure the severity of verbal aggression, object aggression, and aggression against self and against others. The SOAS and SOAS-R attempt to capture the frequency, nature, and severity of aggressive incidents. Data collected for SOAS/SOAS-R fall into five categories: what started or provoked the aggressive act, specific details about it, the aim or target of the act, the consequences for the target or victim, and measures that were used to stop the aggression (34). Some studies using the SOAS/SOAS-R also used a visual analog scale, which was a subjective measure of level of violence severity as perceived by the person completing the instrument (34). The PCC was developed initially for a comprehensive study of psychiatric inpatient violence in the United Kingdom, part of which examined types of conflict and consequent containment measures used by staff (35). The PCC focuses more on staff-patient relationships than on collecting prevalence data. The PCC consists of 21 conflict behavior items (e.g., physical aggression or refusing medication) and eight containment measures (e.g., medication or restraints) (36).
The major differences among the instruments are clarity of definitions and anchors, how frequently the measure is completed, the time frame covered by the measure, domains measured, and number of items to note and score. Each instrument provides at least a rudimentary definition of aggression and violence, with the MOAS, SOAS-R, and PCC having the most detailed anchors. Three measures, the OAS, SOAS, and SOAS-R, are meant to be completed for each incident, which in theory would lead to more accurate measures of violence prevalence. However, several studies mentioned that per-incident completion was burdensome for staff, particularly for the SOAS/SOAS-R, which includes >20 items, and that these measures often were not completed because of lack of time or inability to fit completion into the workflow (34). Although the MOAS and ROAS take less of staff’s time because they require assessment only of the past week, they are subject to inaccuracy due to recall bias. The much simpler AOS, in which staff note whether three domains are either absent or present per patient at the end of each shift, was developed to address both of these issues (20). It is possible that a paucity of studies that used the AOS was due to this instrument having been developed much later than the other instruments.
The difference among instruments regarding the domains they measure is also related to the number of items necessary to note and score. The OAS, ROAS, MOAS, and AOS each measure verbal aggression, the most common form of violence, whereas the SOAS/SOAS-R and PCC do not. The latter instruments document several potentially useful details about violent episodes; however, the length of time for filling out these forms likely precludes their consistent use on a busy inpatient psychiatric unit.
How Measures Were Used
Our results showed that use of routine notes and occurrence reports, OAS variants, and the PCC (N=61, 82%) clustered into the following categories: using the instrument to assess the effect of implementing violence risk assessment tools, to assess outcomes of an intervention meant to reduce violence, to measure the incidence or prevalence of violence, and to measure other causes of or clinical correlates of variables with violence. In most of these studies (N=38 of 61, 62%), the instruments were used to determine the causes of or clinical correlates of aggression, and in 46% (N=28 of 61) of the studies, instruments were used to measure aggression prevalence or incidence. Overall, OAS variants were used more frequently than unstructured notes and PCC to quantify prevalence or incidence (N=18 of 28, 64%).
Reliability and Validity
Although we found no reliability or validity scores for the unstructured tools, each of the four most commonly cited instruments had good interrater reliability; the OAS had an intraclass coefficient (ICC) between 0.70 and 0.87; the MOAS, a Pearson’s r between 0.85 and 0.94; the SOAS-R, an ICC of 0.96 and an interrater reliability between 0.61 and 0.74; and the PCC, a κ of 0.69 and a Cronbach’s α of 0.73. We found no description of validity for unstructured measures or the OAS; we noted multiple examples of discriminant validity in the literature for the MOAS and SOAS-R and a few for the PCC.
Discussion
Our main finding was that the most commonly used tools to measure acute violence on inpatient psychiatry units between 2008 and 2018 were structured scoring instruments, specifically variants of the OAS. The field has long called for adoption of a gold standard and commonly used instruments, and our results support a trend toward using a few structured, well-researched instruments. Gothelf et al. (37) reported that 44.7% of empirical studies of aggression among psychiatric patients published in seven major American and European peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1994 used unstructured instruments such as nursing notes and specially designed questionnaires. This observation is unsurprising given that many of the structured instruments were developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Our findings are consistent with Iozzino et al.’s meta-analysis (38) spanning studies published in 1995–2014, showing that of 35 studies of violence incidence, seven used unstructured instruments to collect violence data and that OAS variants were used in 20 of 22 studies that used structured instruments. Campbell et al. (39) concluded that the most frequently cited and researched instrument of psychiatric inpatient violence was the SOAS. In a 2020 systematic review by Li et al. (40) of prevalence of aggression among persons diagnosed as having schizophrenia, their inclusion criteria included only studies that used the MOAS.
However, our findings must be interpreted with caution; for instance, a 2021 review by Odes et al. (12) of frequency of inpatient violence against health care workers included 14 studies, all but one of which (41) used unstructured instruments or nursing notes. A comprehensive 2011 review by Bowers et al. (35) found that of 122 identified studies measuring incidence of psychiatric patient violence in various settings, 55% were “retrospective analyses of official incident records and/or patient notes,” and 45% were based on data from “surveys, interviews and observation recording instruments that had been designed for each study.” Our study’s finding of a trend toward increased use of structured instruments may be due to the following. The Odes et al. (12) review spanned a much longer time frame with more stringent search criteria, looking only at quantitative studies that reported baseline measures. Bowers et al.’s review (35) collected studies conducted between 1960 and 2009, mostly before our selected time frame, and the search criteria of these authors were much broader.
Although the observed trend toward increased use of standardized, well-researched instruments for measuring violence against psychiatric staff is promising, we note that the different instruments used are not directly comparable, leading to the aforementioned inability to compare data among states or countries or within or among institutions to see which instrument is working well. One potential obstacle to adopting standard measures is that the instruments used to measure violence are cumbersome or time consuming for an already overly busy inpatient staff (34, 42, 43). Nursing staff may find that adding one more rating scale would interfere with their usual workflow and that the effort for entering data may not be valuable (18, 44–47). Staff are willing to make temporary changes in their schedules for short periods to accommodate specific research projects, but for longer-term quality improvement purposes, workflow changes must be sustainable and not place too much additional burden on already overtaxed staff (42, 48, 49). The burden of filling out forms is one of the hypothesized reasons for the significant underreporting of inpatient violence (42, 50). It is therefore important to ensure that the staff filling out the instruments find the data they collect of value. For example, it would be more useful for staff to be able to track violence data for individual patients over time to assess effects of psychopharmacological or other therapeutic interventions or to highlight changes in behavior during team meetings. In addition, hospital administrations might use the data to redirect staffing to reduce the likelihood of assault and injury on units that have an increase in violence.
Our own experience highlights the importance of addressing these obstacles to wider implementation. After an initial scoping review of instruments for recording and scoring violence and aggression incidents, we piloted the SOAS-R instrument at our hospital because it was one of the most commonly used instruments, had a good evidence base in the literature, and collected more comprehensive data about each incident. After having received only two completed SOAS-R forms after 2 months, we concluded that the SOAS-R’s length and complexity, coupled with the high frequency of violent events on the units, made it too burdensome for already overtaxed nurses to complete. This observation was not surprising, given Gifford and Anderson’s (51) findings regarding obstacles to and facilitators of nurses’ reasons for reporting or not reporting assault. Impediments to reporting included lack of time to complete the forms, lack of clarity of the reporting process itself, and forms that are not well designed or easily accessible.
We were surprised that the nurses at our hospital asked us to implement a simpler, more general instrument. This request prompted us to pilot an adaptation of the MOAS instrument. The MOAS is short, requires responses in four categories, and includes verbal aggression. Because of its brevity, it fits more easily into the staff workflow at the end of each shift or day. The MOAS also is relatively simple to incorporate into an electronic health record, which allows for graphical analysis to assess trends and to provide immediate feedback to teams working with patients. The data could be analyzed to assess the MOAS’s function regarding risk assessment, staffing patterns, and response to violence interventions such as deescalation, seclusion, restraint, and medications. Moreover, the MOAS has validity and reliability (15, 21, 52). There is precedent for such use, because the MOAS has been used immediately after an incident rather than retroactively (41, 53) and is currently being used as part of a strategy to reduce inpatient violence at Stony Brook University Hospital, an acute care inpatient psychiatric hospital (54).
The MOAS is used as a retrospective instrument that asks staff members to recall episodes of violence from the past 7 days. This approach is subject to recall bias and leads to inaccurate measurements. Therefore, a major change we made to the MOAS was to use it for real-time scoring at each work shift or day, which also helped with the limitation that the MOAS does not tally the incident frequency. Although it would be ideal to use an instrument that also captures exact incident frequency, keeping track of the number of episodes of verbal violence, in particular, on acute inpatient units would put too much burden on staff. It may be that with the adoption of portable technology, recording of incident frequency could be incorporated into a more comprehensive measure that fits into the daily workflow of staff. In our hospital, the MOAS is now embedded in the nurses’ shift progress note in the electronic record. Because changing the MOAS from retrospective to real-time incident recording is likely to change its reliability and validity, we devised an easily accessible, brief online training module based on vignettes that helps standardize scoring, and we will study both its reliability and validity as we gather more data. We plan to report on the usefulness, reliability, and validity of this modified MOAS in a future article.
This review’s limitations included that the search strategy was probably not inclusive enough; we may have missed studies, including conference proceedings, abstracts, books, studies in languages other than English, and inquiries to specific experts. To minimize omission of studies, we conducted the review with the aid of university library services. The included articles were diverse in design and intent, with differences in method qualities and interventions and types of patients studied, and some of the instruments may be more useful in particular types of studies. For example, we included research studies that used measures collecting more details about specific episodes for a short period of time to answer specific research questions along with longer-term studies that measured episodes in general to capture overall prevalence. We may also have inadvertently misclassified some studies as being independent when they were duplicates. We did not contact authors to verify our assumptions. We did not calculate bias in study inclusion or methodological quality, because it was not considered as important in a study that investigates frequency of use of an instrument as it would be in a study that, for example, examines the effectiveness of an intervention. Finally, we note potential subjectivity bias because only one author reviewed the database citation results, selected articles for review, and reviewed the articles.
Conclusions
Violent behavior often leads to a psychiatric inpatient admission and, if it continues after hospitalization, may result in serious injuries to other patients and staff. Despite this, most hospitals do not collect aggression data with standard instruments. Without accurate frequency and prevalence data, it is difficult to develop safer institutional clinical policies and practices, assess the success or failure of targeted interventions, or evaluate the results of such changes (1, 42, 50, 55–57). Adoption of standardized, valid, and reliable instruments with specified definitions is needed to enhance our understanding of what causes patients’ violent behavior and how to prevent it and to rigorously assess the effectiveness of any interventions to reduce violent behavior (42). Over the past 10 years, studies that have used structured instruments of violent behavior on psychiatric inpatient units have tended to use OAS variants. Obstacles to clinical use of standardized instruments for measuring patient-to-staff violence, such as unclear definitions of the constructs being measured, number of times and length of time required to enter data, omission of the most frequent form of aggression (i.e., verbal), and relevance to staff entering the data may be addressed by employing a modified version of the MOAS in which data are collected daily or per shift.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202000297.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 791.71 KB
References
1.
Phillips JP: Workplace violence against health care workers in the United States. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1661–1669
2.
Sentinel Event Alert 59: Physical and Verbal Violence Against Health Care Workers. Oakbrook Terrace, IL, Joint Commission, 2018. https://www.jointcommission.org/en/resources/patient-safety-topics/sentinel-event/sentinel-event-alert-newsletters/sentinel-event-alert-59-physical-and-verbal-violence-against-health-care-workers
3.
Harrell E: Workplace Violence, 1993–2009—National Crime Victimization Survey and the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice, 2011. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/wv09.pdf
4.
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. Int J Nurs Stud 2008; 45:35–50
5.
Foster C, Bowers L, Nijman H: Aggressive behaviour on acute psychiatric wards: prevalence, severity and management. J Adv Nurs 2007; 58:140–149
6.
Mobaraki A, Aladah R, Alahmadi R, et al: Prevalence of workplace violence against nurses working in hospitals: a literature review. Am J Nurs 2020; 9:84–90
7.
Allen DE: Staying safe: re-examining workplace violence in acute psychiatric settings. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv 2013; 51:37–41
8.
Kaeser D, Guerra R, Keidar O, et al: Verbal and non-verbal aggression in a Swiss university emergency room: a descriptive study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15:1423
9.
Boafo IM, Hancock P, Gringart E: Sources, incidence and effects of non-physical workplace violence against nurses in Ghana. Nurs Open 2016; 3:99–109
10.
Rosenthal LJ, Byerly A, Taylor AD, et al: Impact and prevalence of physical and verbal violence toward healthcare workers. Psychosomatics 2018; 59:584–590
11.
R3 Report Issue 13: Revised Outcome Measures Standard for Behavioral Health Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL, Joint Commission, 2018. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/r3-report/r3-report-issue-13-revised-outcome-measures-standard-for-behavioral-health-care
12.
Odes R, Chapman S, Harrison R, et al: Frequency of violence towards healthcare workers in the United States’ inpatient psychiatric hospitals: a systematic review of literature. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2021; 30:27–46
13.
Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Australia, Veritas Health Innovation, n.d. https://support.covidence.org
14.
Cutcliffe JR, Riahi S: Systemic perspective of violence and aggression in mental health care: towards a more comprehensive understanding and conceptualization: part 1. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2013; 22:558–567
15.
Allen DE, Mistler LA, Ray R, et al: A call to action from the APNA Council for Safe Environments: defining violence and aggression for research and practice improvement purposes. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2019; 25:7–10
16.
Carr VJ, Lewin TJ, Sly KA, et al: Adverse incidents in acute psychiatric inpatient units: rates, correlates and pressures. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2008; 42:267–282
17.
Yudofsky SC, Silver JM, Jackson W, et al: The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physical aggression. Am J Psychiatry 1986; 143:35–39
18.
Arnetz JE, Arnetz BB, Söderman E: Violence toward health care workers. Prevalence and incidence at a large, regional hospital in Sweden. AAOHN J 1998; 46:107–114
19.
Sorgi P, Ratey J, Knoedler D, et al: Rating aggression in the clinical setting. A retrospective adaptation of the Overt Aggression Scale: preliminary results. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1991; 3:S52–S56
20.
Hvidhjelm J, Sestoft D, Bjørner JB: The Aggression Observation Short Form identified episodes not reported on the Staff Observation Aggression Scale–Revised. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2014; 35:464–469
21.
Kay SR, Wolkenfeld F, Murrill LM: Profiles of aggression among psychiatric patients: I. Nature and prevalence. J Nerv Ment Dis 1988; 176:539–546
22.
Palmstierna T, Wistedt B: Staff observation aggression scale, SOAS: presentation and evaluation. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1987; 76:657–663
23.
Nijman HLI, Allertz WFF, Merckelbach HLGJ, et al: Aggressive behaviour on an acute psychiatric admissions ward. Eur J Psychiatry 1997; 11:106–114
24.
Wistedt B, Rasmussen A, Pedersen L, et al: The development of an observer-scale for measuring social dysfunction and aggression. Pharmacopsychiatry 1990; 23:249–252
25.
Morrison EF: The measurement of aggression and violence in hospitalized psychiatric patients. Int J Nurs Stud 1993; 30:51–64
26.
Bjørkly S: Report form for aggressive episodes: preliminary report. Percept Mot Skills 1996; 83:1139–1152
27.
Delgado-Escueta AV, Mattson RH, King L, et al: Special report. The nature of aggression during epileptic seizures. N Engl J Med 1981; 305:711–716
28.
Amoo G, Fatoye FO: Aggressive behaviour and mental illness: a study of in-patients at Aro Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Abeokuta. Niger J Clin Pract 2010; 13:351–355
29.
Buss AH, Perry MJ: The aggression questionnaire. Pers Soc Psychol 1992; 63:452–459
30.
Montoya A, Valladares A, Lizán L, et al: Validation of the Excited Component of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-EC) in a naturalistic sample of 278 patients with acute psychosis and agitation in a psychiatric emergency room. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011; 9:18
31.
Ratey JJ, Gutheil CM: The measurement of aggressive behavior: reflections on the use of the Overt Aggression Scale and the Modified Overt Aggression Scale. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1991; 3:S57–S60
32.
Altinbaş K, Altinbaş G, Türkcan A, et al: A survey of verbal and physical assaults towards psychiatrists in Turkey. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2011; 57:631–636
33.
Hallsteinsen A, Kristensen M, Dahl AA, et al: The Extended Staff Observation Aggression Scale (SOAS-E): development, presentation and evaluation. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1998; 97:423–426
34.
Nijman HL, Palmstierna T, Almvik R, et al: Fifteen years of research with the Staff Observation Aggression Scale: a review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005; 111:12–21
35.
Bowers L, Stewart D, Papadopoulos C, et al: Inpatient violence and aggression: a literature review; in Report From the Conflict and Containment Reduction Research Programme. London, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, 2011
36.
Bowers L, Simpson A, Alexander J: Patient-staff conflict: results of a survey on acute psychiatric wards. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2003; 38:402–408
37.
Gothelf D, Apter A, van Praag HM: Measurement of aggression in psychiatric patients. Psychiatry Res 1997; 71:83–95
38.
Iozzino L, Ferrari C, Large M, et al: Prevalence and risk factors of violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0128536
39.
Campbell CL, Burg MA, Gammonley D: Measures for incident reporting of patient violence and aggression towards healthcare providers: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav 2015; 25:314–322
40.
Li Y-L, Li R-Q, Qiu D, et al: Prevalence of workplace physical violence against health care professionals by patients and visitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17:299
41.
Ridenour M, Lanza M, Hendricks S, et al: Incidence and risk factors of workplace violence on psychiatric staff. Work 2015; 51:19–28
42.
Morphet J, Griffiths D, Innes K: The trouble with reporting and utilization of workplace violence data in health care. J Nurs Manag 2019; 27:592–598
43.
Harris ST, Oakley C, Picchioni M: Quantifying violence in mental health research. Aggress Violent Behav 2013; 18:695–701
44.
Gates DM: The epidemic of violence against healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med 2004; 61:649–650
45.
Arnetz JE, Hamblin L, Ager J, et al: Underreporting of workplace violence: comparison of self-report and actual documentation of hospital incidents. Workplace Health Saf 2015; 63:200–210
46.
Arnetz JE, Hamblin L, Essenmacher L, et al: Understanding patient-to-worker violence in hospitals: a qualitative analysis of documented incident reports. J Adv Nurs 2015; 71:338–348
47.
Lanza ML, Campbell D: Patient assault: a comparison study of reporting methods. J Nurs Qual Assur 1991; 5:60–68
48.
Carayon P, Gürses AP: A human factors engineering conceptual framework of nursing workload and patient safety in intensive care units. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2005; 21:284–301
49.
Shah A: Some methodological issues in using aggression rating scales in intervention studies among institutionalized elderly. Int Psychogeriatr 1999; 11:439–444
50.
di Giacomo E, Iozzino L, Ferrari C, et al: Prevalence and risk factors of violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: systematic review and meta-analysis—a 2019 update; in Violence and Mental Disorders. Edited by Carpiniello B, Vita A, Mencacci, C. New York, Springer, 2020
51.
Gifford ML, Anderson JE: Barriers and motivating factors in reporting incidents of assault in mental health care. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 2010; 16:288–298
52.
Huang HC, Wang Y-T, Chen KC, et al: The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Modified Overt Aggression Scale. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2009; 13:303–306
53.
Lanza M, Ridenour M, Hendricks S, et al: The violence prevention community meeting: a multi-site study. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2016; 30:382–386
54.
Marangio JH, Hill E, Marriott, S et al: Proactive interprofessional collaboration: reducing workplace violence through the use of the modified Overt Aggression Scale. American Psychiatric Nurses’ Association 33rd Annual Conference, New Orleans, Oct 2–5, 2019
55.
Franz S, Zeh A, Schablon A, et al: Aggression and violence against health care workers in Germany—a cross sectional retrospective survey. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10:51
56.
Campbell JC, Messing JT, Kub J, et al: Workplace violence: prevalence and risk factors in the safe at work study. J Occup Environ Med 2011; 53:82–89
57.
d’Ettorre G, Pellicani V: Workplace violence toward mental healthcare workers employed in psychiatric wards. Saf Health Work 2017; 8:337–342
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 30 April 2020
Revision received: 3 January 2021
Revision received: 25 June 2021
Accepted: 19 July 2021
Published online: 15 September 2021
Published in print: June 2022
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
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.).