Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 233

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A systematic review of the literature: workplace violence in the emergency department

Taylor, Jessica L, Rew, Lynn·2011·Journal of Clinical Nursing

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03342.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

Cited by

See all 233

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.