Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 315

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Aggression towards health care staff in a UK general hospital: variation among professions and departments

Winstanley, Sue, Whittington, Richard·2004·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Background. Aggression towards health care staff is an increasing problem and although many studies have examined psychiatric settings, few have considered general hospitals and in particular, variation among professions and locations. In addition, studies often fail to include all forms of aggression such as threatening behaviour and verbal aggression. Methods. This study extends existing research by evaluating physical assault, threatening behaviour and verbal aggression from patients/visitors towards general hospital staff in the context of different professions and departments. Results and conclusions. The survey of staff showed that aggression is widespread. Within the preceding year, 27% of the respondents were assaulted, 23% experienced threatening behaviour from patients and 15.5% experienced threatening behaviour from visitors. Over 68% reported verbal aggression, 25.7% experiencing it more regularly than monthly. By departments, over 42% of the medical department staff, 36% of the surgical staff and over 30% of the Accident and Emergency staff were assaulted. By profession, staff nurses and enrolled nurses reported the most assaults (43.4%) and doctors, the fewest (13.8%). Other nursing grades and health care professions all reported levels of physical assault in excess of 20%. Correspondingly high levels of threatening behaviour and verbal aggression were also reported although the patterns of victimization differed according to the various professions and departments. Independently, significant levels of assault, threatening behaviour and verbal aggression were reported. When aggregated they demonstrate the higher levels of victimization that general hospital staff experienced on a regular basis. Relevance to clinical practice. Institutional averages actually obscure the much higher levels of aggression experienced by the particular professions in particular departments. This study helps to localize the problem and identify those at most risk, but more research is needed into the aetiology of the aggression and of vulnerability factors associated with victimization.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00807.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Winstanley, S., & Whittington, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-12-22
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
3-10
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W2117087865
Cited by
315
References
0
FWCI
35.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aggression towards health care staff in a UK general hospital: variation among professions and departments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00807.x
The paper
Winstanley, S., & Whittington, R. (2004). Aggression towards health care staff in a UK general hospital: variation among professions and departments. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00807.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.