Identifying quality indicators to measure workplace violence in healthcare settings: a rapid review

Abstract

Structured summaryBackgroundWorkplace violence (WPV) in healthcare is a growing challenge posing significant risks to patient care and employee well-being. Existing metrics to measure WPV in healthcare settings often fail to provide decision-makers with an adequate reflection of WPV due to the complexity of the issue. This increases the difficulty for decision-makers to evaluate WPV in healthcare settings and implement interventions that can produce sustained improvements.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify and compile a list of quality indicators that have previously been utilized to measure WPV in healthcare settings. The identified quality indicators serve as tools, providing leadership with the necessary information on the state of WPV within their organization or the impact of WPV prevention interventions. This information provides leadership with a foundation for planning and decision making related to addressing WPV.MethodsOvid databases were used to identify articles relevant to violence in healthcare settings, from which 43 publications were included for data extraction. Data extraction produced a total of 229 quality indicators that were sorted into three indicator categories using the Donabedian model: structure, process, and outcome.ResultsA majority of the articles (93%) contained at least 1 quality indicator that possessed the potential to be operationalized at an organizational level. In addition, several articles (40%) contained valuable questionnaires or survey instruments for measuring WPV. In total, the rapid review process identified 84 structural quality indicators, 121 process quality indicators, 24 outcome quality indicators, 57 survey-type questions and 17 survey instruments.ConclusionsThis study provides a foundation for healthcare organizations to address WPV through systematic approaches informed by quality indicators. The utilization of indicators showed promise for characterizing WPV and measuring the efficacy of interventions. Caution must be exercised to ensure indicators are not discriminatory and are suited to specific organizational needs. While the findings of this review are promising, further investigation is needed to rigorously evaluate existing literature to expand the list of quality indicators for WPV.