The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A systematic review of the literature: workplace violence in the emergency department
Abstract
Aims and objectives. To synthesise the body of literature on workplace violence in the emergency department and to identify characteristics of intervention studies that are the basis for guiding best practice modelling in the clinical setting. The research question addressed was what are the characteristics and findings of studies since 2004 on workplace violence in the emergency department? Background. Emergency departments are prone to increased incidents of workplace violence. Workplace violence in the health care setting has become a hot topic of policy, political debate and research in recent years. Despite the research that has been carried out in this area, little consensus exists as to what are the best practices for mitigating violence in this setting. Design. Systematic literature review. Methods. Search using four online databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database. Results. Most research focused on the incidence rates of workplace violence in the emergency department and effects on staff. There was a significant lack of intervention studies to provide a framework for guiding evidence‐based practice. Themes of under‐reporting violence, barriers and attitudes towards reporting, description and characterisation of incidents of violence, predisposing factors and the concept of safety or lack of fear were all major content areas addressed in the literature. Conclusions. Incidence of workplace violence in the emergency department has been well documented in numerous published studies. Emergency department workers are exposed to significant rates of physical and verbal abuse. Under‐reporting of workplace violence in the emergency department is common and contributes to the difficulty in accurately tracking violence. Relevance to clinical practice. Future research must move beyond descriptive studies to include more advanced research methods. Few practice‐guiding implications can be gained from this body of research because of the lack of intervention studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cited by
Workplace Violence against Health Care Workers in the United States
Phillips, J. P. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1501998 · Cited by 717
Spector, P. E., Zhou, Z. E., & Che, X. X. (2014) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.01.010 · Cited by 614
Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18052294 · Cited by 494
Magnavita, N., & Heponiemi, T. (2012) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-108 · Cited by 274
Pariona‐Cabrera, P., Cavanagh, J., & Halvorsen, B. (2023) · Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12361 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, J. L., & Rew, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-09-15
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 7-8
- Pages
- 1072-1085
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W2148167416
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.95
- 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: A systematic review of the literature: workplace violence in the emergency department. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03342.x
- The paper
- Taylor, J. L., & Rew, L. (2011). A systematic review of the literature: workplace violence in the emergency department. Journal of Clinical Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03342.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.