Workplace violence in different settings and among various health professionals in an Italian general hospital: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

Workplace violence (WPV) is defined as physically and psychologically damaging actions that professionals face in the workplace or while on duty.^1,2 Examples of WPV include direct physical assaults (with or without weapons), written or verbal threats, physical or verbal harassment, and homicide,^2,3 which “…involve an explicit or implicit challenge to … safety, well-being or health” of professionals.^4,5 Only in recent years, physical or psychological WPV, for long a “forgotten” issue, has become an emerging problem in different work settings and among professional staff of both industrialized and developing countries.^6–12 WPV causes disruption not only to interpersonal relationships and work organization but also to people’s dignity and their emotional and physical well-being.^6,13 Some authors provide evidence of the prevailing attitude that “workplace violence is a culturally accepted and expected part of one’s occupation”.^14,15 In 2007, the Italian Ministry of Health¹⁶ issued a recommendation for the prevention of violence in health care facilities, which, still now, has not been completely implemented due to the lack of strategies and procedures for counteracting WPV in most Italian health institutions.¹⁷ Violence against health care workers is classified as a “sentinel event” since it represents a signal of risk in the work environment, requiring the adoption of appropriate preventive measures, protection for workers, and accurate monitoring.¹⁸ In a case of violence, many hospital procedures for clinical risk management are provided, such as incident reporting, and Audit and Root Cause analysis.¹⁹

WPV in health settings constitutes almost a quarter of total violence reported in all workplaces,^6,20 and nursing has been identified as the occupation most at risk for patient violence.^14,21,22 Up to now, the prevalence of this phenomenon has not been completely evaluated since WPV incidents are commonly underreported.^{11,14,23–27}

The prevalence of WPV

Recently, the reported annual prevalence of WPV against all health workers in the general hospitals of many countries has been high, although these data are difficult to compare.^24,28 In particular, in Italy the WPV annual prevalence ranged from 48.6% to 65.9%.^26,27 Most studies reported that non-physical violence, represented by psychological violence or verbal abuse, is the most frequent type of aggression in all health care settings. The WPV reported varied according to the type of violence; verbal threat was the most common form, with a frequency range between 19.6% and 98.6%, which was three to six times higher than physical violence.^11,26–28 A recent study conducted in six US hospitals reported a higher prevalence of verbal assault followed by threats and physical abuse against physicians and nurses.²⁹ In Italy, a study observed that 107 workers reported suffering from a physical aggression in the 12-month period preceding the survey, 101 reported suffering threats, and 229 reported being the victims of verbal aggression.¹¹

The annual prevalence of physical assault varied among the different countries, ranging from 11.5% in a cohort of Italian professionals to 56% in German health workers.^14,26 A recent integrative review of WPV against nurses in the Anglo, Asian, European, and the Middle Eastern regions reported, in a sample of 65,424 nurses, the following percentages: 62.8% non-physical violence, 47.6% bullying, 31.8% physical violence, and 17.9% sexual harassment.³⁰ Most recent studies confirm these data in many different countries.^5,13,31

Professionals assaulted

Among the different health occupations, nurses are the category most exposed to WPV, as observed by most research.^8,9,11,26,29 In accordance with a recent review, the more frequent occurrence of violence against nurses in comparison to physicians can be explained by many factors: “length of time spent with the patient”, “perceived senior authority of doctors by patients when compared with nurses and how this relates to their care and treatment option”, “communication style”, and “misinformation”.³² Other studies highlighted that the particularly high violence rates for nurses and nursing assistants were probably caused by their earlier and longer interaction with patients, when compared to physicians, which increased their chances of being physically threatened.²⁵ In a US population of hospital workers, Pompeii et al³³ found that nurses, probably due to their more direct and closer involvement with patients, reported the highest proportions of violent events. Nevertheless, no occupation is immune to the assaults and threats, although with significant differences among occupations. More than two-thirds of physicians have experienced WPV during their career, and more than 50% of physicians have experienced WPV in the previous year.^34–38 A recent study has not evidenced any statistical difference in exposure to violence between physicians and nurses, during twelve months of observation in Palestinian public hospitals.²⁴ Another study reported that physicians had been more frequently assaulted in a 1-year period.³⁹ In one Italian specialist setting, an infectious diseases hospital, physicians were the category most exposed to attack, probably due to their decision-making role and the fact that they often worked alone with patients.¹⁷ On the contrary, in another Italian study, physicians and nurses of a general public hospital presented a similar risk of exposure to different forms of violence from patients and visitors.²⁷ Recently, in Turkey, there has been an increase in the number of violent acts against health care workers, in particular toward physicians.⁴⁰ The excessive demands of patients, the expectation of immediately solving clinical problems, and blaming physicians for their problems were indicated in the literature as the most frequent causes of violent behavior.^40,41

The WPV risk factors

The etiology of WPV is complex and the literature on this topic indicates many risk factors related to both the aggressors and the professionals assaulted. Many authors indicate that health care workers younger than 40 years old are most frequently the victims of violent events⁴² and older workers experienced significantly less violence than younger workers,^24,43–45 but not all research findings were consistent with this observation.⁴⁶ Other research showed that younger and less experienced personnel, clinician (nurses and physicians) compared to administrative, were significantly at higher risk of exposure to WPV.⁴⁷ Young age, female sex, lower education, shorter duration of employment, and high level of anxiety of staff seemed to be the determinants of violence in nursing profession.⁴⁸ Discordantly, other researchers reported that male professionals experienced WPV significantly more often than females when they actively intervened, but females were more often the targets of violence.^43,44 In Italian general hospitals, Zampieron et al⁴⁸ found that female nurses were the most frequent victims of aggression, whereas in another recent study, Guglielmetti et al²⁷ highlighted that male health workers had a double risk for being victims of physical violence in comparison to female professionals.²⁷ In this study, no gender difference was evidenced for non-physical violence. One group of researchers found that participants who had not attended violence-prevention training were at greater risk for WPV than workers who did attend training.^14,46 In contrast with this result, Nachreiner et al⁴⁹ reported that violence training increased the likelihood of being a victim of physical violence.⁴⁴

Regarding aggressors, most authors indicate that perpetrators were more often patients than visitors or patients’ relatives.^29,39,48 The majority of physical assaults and physical threats perpetrated by patients were also attributed to mental health or behavioral issues.^29,45 Visitor-perpetrated events were more often verbal abuse and were associated with dissatisfaction with care, including concern about patient care, unmet expectations of care, and/or long wait for care/scheduling delays.^29,48 Almvik et al⁵⁰ determined that the severity of physical violence perpetrated by male patients was significantly greater than violence perpetrated by female patients. Physical violence was most often enacted by men and people 66 years or older.^44,51 The most frequent aggressions against nurses and physicians were committed by patients, followed by patients’ relatives and professional colleagues.^39,52

In many countries, including Italy, the psychiatric⁴⁸ and emergency^24,36 departments were the services at greatest risk of violence.^{11,26–28,41,47,53–55} Mental health disorders (such as dementia, schizophrenia, anxiety, acute stress reaction, suicidal ideation, and alcohol and drug intoxication) have often been identified in people who have committed WPV,^{24,29,33,36,44,56} that, in the majority of cases, occurred in patient rooms or exam rooms.^29,48 Less than half occurred while the worker was alone with the perpetrator. According to some studies, violence is more likely to occur during certain times of the day: 70% of violent events took place at night,³² during afternoon shifts (3 pm–11 pm),¹² or during the evening and night shifts (2 pm–8 am).²⁴ In an Italian study, violence was predominantly diurnal in psychiatry department and nocturnal or evening in emergency department.⁵⁵ Increased rates of violence during evening and night-time hours may be attributed to the types and conditions of patients, such as intoxication and/or mental confusion.³² Higher rates of violence during this time can also be attributed to lower presence of hospital administration and reduced staff during the evening and night shifts that would require personnel to work alone.^24,43,44,50 Most authors underline that all cases of WPV, even without physical injuries, induce in the assaulted persons emotional consequences such as anger or anxiety, which could favor psychological distress.^6,7,20,57 These conditions could be complicated by substance abuse or other severe psychiatric disorders, leading to burnout and even leaving the health professions. In fact some studies reported that professionals who had experienced a high level of WPV suffered from post traumatic stress disorder symptoms such as sleeping disorders, irritability, difficulty concentrating, reliving of trauma, and feeling emotionally upset.^39,58,59 The negative consequences of WPV, which could include deterioration in the quality, efficiency, and availability of care provided and, indirectly, increased health costs, impact heavily on the delivery of health care services.^6,60

In recent years, some research has shown that, also in Italy, WPV is a widespread problem, although few Italian studies have described the phenomenon in detail, comparing different professionals and settings. As suggested by the literature, the characteristics of violence as well as the risk factors for aggression can change according to the health care environment where assault occurs. Assessing specific risk factors of WPV can represent the first step in preventing violence and its consequences.

Aims

The aims of this study were, therefore, 1) to examine the frequency and the characteristics of WPV in different settings and professionals of a general hospital and 2) to identify the clinical and organizational factors related to this phenomenon.

Methods

Study design

The design of this study was cross-sectional. In order to detect violent attacks against health professionals in a general hospital, we administered the questionnaire “Violent Incident Form” (VIF) of Arnetz,⁶¹ in the Italian version, previously used in other Italian studies.^11,55,62 This instrument consists of 18 questions with binary (yes/no) or multiple choice responses for describing the worst WPV recorded during the previous 12 months.

The VIF requires the professional to describe “a specific incident of violent or threatening behavior directed toward a staff member” and investigates the following domains related to the violent event (Table 1):

• Health worker assaulted
• Aggressor
• Violent event
• Management, consequences, and reporting

Table 1 Variables collected by Violent Incident Form (VIF) Note: The Italian version of VIF11.

Reliability, as evaluated in the previous Italian studies by the 1-month test–retest Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient, was 0.91.^17,62

Sample

Our convenience sample was represented by the accessible population of all health professionals (n=745), physicians, nurses, head nurses, and nursing assistants, who worked in the health units of a general hospital in northern Italy for at least one year:

1. Service of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment (SPDT)
2. Emergency department
3. Cardiovascular medicine
4. Metabolic medicine
5. Rehabilitation medicine
6. Gastroenterology
7. Neurology
8. Cardiology/cardiovascular rehabilitation
9. Geriatrics and post-acute geriatric treatment
10. Post-acute extensive phase rehabilitation
11. Orthopedics
12. Vascular surgery
13. General surgery
14. Neurosurgery
15. Neurological and post-surgery intensive care

The distribution of professionals in the hospital units is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 VIF response rate, violent episodes, and professionals assaulted divided by health units Notes: *Pearson chi-squared test =6.76, P=0.0001; **Pearson chi-squared test =113.91, P=0.000. Abbreviation: VIF, Violent Incident Form.

Procedure for data collection

Before the administration of VIF, we held a meeting with the professionals of each hospital unit in order to give information about this research, encouraging their participation. In particular, we asked the professionals to describe the most significant WPV that occurred during the previous year, following the definitions and the indications of VIF.

After getting permission from the management of the general hospital, on May 5, 2015, we distributed the questionnaire to all health professionals in the aforementioned units, accompanied by a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study. The questionnaire was completed independently and anonymously, and deposited in sealed boxes provided in each unit. The completed questionnaires were collected after 1 month.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was authorized by both the Medical Director and Nurse Manager of the General Hospital (NOCSAE) of Modena where the research was conducted. The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Local Nurses Association. Each professional received verbal and written information in detail from the main researcher. The anonymity and confidentiality of participants were assured and their decision to participate voluntarily in this study was respected. All participants who completed the questionnaire gave their approval for the study and the data protection.

Statistical analysis

We calculated the sample size based on the 2.5% WPV rate among our professionals with 50% expected response rate and 0.80 power, obtaining a sample of 294 professionals. For continuous data, we calculated the average and standard deviation and applied the Student’s t-test; for categorical variables, we calculated percentages and applied the chi-squared test. Multiple logistic regression model was used in order to highlight variables related to the violent event. Data were analyzed by using STATA Version 12 program.⁶³

Results

The prevalence of WPV in our sample

We collected 419 completed questionnaires, with an overall response rate of 56% (419/745), distributed among different health workers as follows: 39% (77/200) physicians, 89% (17/19) head nurses, 63% (259/413) nurses, and 56% (66/118) nursing assistants. We observed different response rates to VIF in the various health units (Table 2) as well as between the two genders, since 67% (279/419) of health workers who completed the questionnaire were females, whereas 33% (140/419) were males. The demographic characteristics of respondents are reflective of the underlying population of workers. A total of 45% (187/419) of health workers who completed VIF had experienced an episode of violence, with a different distribution among the various professional categories, as shown in Table 2.

The characteristics of the professional assaulted and the aggressor

Women professionals were more frequently assaulted in comparison with men (Pearson chi-squared test=3.90, P=0.048, chi-squared test) which was statistically significant. The frequency of violent episodes reported in VIF was statistically significantly different among the various hospital units (Pearson chi-squared test=6.76, P=0.0001, chi-squared test): SPDT (86%), emergency (71%), and geriatrics (57%) were the health units with the highest frequency of violence (Table 2). The characteristics of professionals assaulted and aggressors are presented in Table 3. Perpetrators more frequently were patients and, in contrast to assaulted persons, males. The mean age of health workers who had experienced violence (standard deviation 40.44±7.83 years) was statistically significantly different from aggressors’ age (52.55±17.86 years; t=−8.30, df =359, P=0.000, unpaired t-test), confirmed by the coefficient of Cohen’s d=−0.87611 and by the effect strength, (r)=0.40125. Among the health workers who had experienced aggression, nurses (67%) reported the highest frequency of violence. Non-physical violence was slightly more relevant than physical, and professionals affected reacted in different ways (Table 3).

Table 3 Professionals assaulted, aggressors, and violent events reported in VIF (n=187) Abbreviation: VIF, Violent Incident Form.

Risk factors for physical and non-physical violence

As shown in Table 4, aggressive episodes were registered in all shifts, with a little prevalence during morning ones (43%), more frequently in patient’s room (53%), during hospital stay (53%), at the moment of patient’s interview (32%), and medical treatments and/or nursing care (26%), while professionals assaulted worked with other staff members (65%). The majority of professionals (72%) was not able to forecast violent episodes, reported psychological consequences from aggressions (73%), but did not report the incident (84%) (Table 4). When the two kinds of violence were compared (Table 5), it was found that physical violence was statistically significantly prevalent in psychiatric, post-acute extensive phase rehabilitation, metabolic medicine and neurological and post-surgery intensive care units; it was exhibited by male patients affected by psychiatric diseases and/or cognitive alteration and/or conditioned by drugs or abuse substances, occurred while professional assaulted was working with other staff members and needed rescue by others. Non-physical violence was statistically significantly more frequently observed in geriatrics and post-acute geriatric treatment, metabolic medicine, and emergency department; it was committed by patients’ relatives, caregivers and visitors, in conscious and normal mental conditions, was managed by the professional by himself/herself, induced psychological consequences and was not reported. The category of the assailant differed, in a statistically significant way, among the various health units: in SPDT and neurological and post-surgery intensive care, patients were more frequently the aggressors, whereas in emergency department and geriatrics/post-acute geriatric treatment unit, patients’ family members or caregivers were more often the assailants (Pearson chi-squared test =103.70; P=0.016, chi-squared test). We also found that violence perpetrated by patients mostly occurred in morning and night shifts, whereas assaults by patients’ family members or caregivers were more frequent during afternoon shifts, in a statistically significant way (Pearson chi-squared test =16.37; P=0.037, chi-squared test). In this regard, during night shifts, the violence was mainly committed by males, in a statistically significant way (Pearson chi-squared test =6.35; P=0.042, chi-squared test). We observed a statistically significant difference regarding the place of violent attacks in the various health units: in the emergency department, 63% of all violent events occurred in the waiting room; in SPDT, 47% in the corridor; and in geriatrics/post-acute geriatric treatment unit, 68% in patients’ rooms (Pearson chi-squared test =221.32; P=0.000, chi-squared test). Analysis by multiple logistic regression model showed that significantly higher violent episode was found in psychiatric ward compared to other health units, as well as that nurses and nursing assistants were the professions with the highest risk of being assaulted (Table 6). The variables statistically related to the reporting of WPV were “asking for help during the attack” and “physical injuries suffered from violence” with a positive correlation, and being a “professional of neurological and post-surgery intensive care unit” or being “female professional” with a negative correlation, according to our multiple logistic regression model (number of observations=397, pseudo R²=0.1566; Table 7).

Table 4 Other characteristics of violent events reported in VIF Abbreviation: VIF, Violent Incident Form.

Table 5 Prevalence of exposure to workplace non-physical and physical violence (n=187) Note: *Only statistically significant differences are shown.

Table 6 Variables related to violent episode (multiple logistic regression) Note: *Only the statistically significant variables are reported.

Table 7 Variables related to the reporting of violent episode (multiple logistic regression) Note: *Only the statistically significant variables are reported.

Discussion

Frequency and characteristics of WPV

The response rate (56%) represents a satisfactory outcome, slightly higher than those reported in most Italian studies,^26,27,55 showing an interest in this topic. We did not expect that all professionals would answer the questionnaire because violence experienced in the workplace can represent an embarrassing condition, difficult to report. In our sample, which presented an appropriate size according to power analysis, 45% of health workers reported having suffered a violent incident in the past year, especially nurses, with a relatively high frequency of 67%. This result is in line with literature, which considers this profession the most exposed to the risk for aggression due to the direct contact between nurses and patients.^{21,22,32,64,65} In particular, the prevalence of WPV over 1 year reported in our study was similar to that observed in two other general hospitals of northern Italy.^26,27

This study contributes by highlighting that, also in an Italian general hospital, violence is a significant phenomenon and that all health workers, especially nurses and nursing assistants, are at risk of suffering aggressive assaults. Nevertheless, we observed that even other professionals experienced violence in the workplace, in particular, physicians and nursing assistants, in accordance with the studies that examined more than one health professional category.^33,47 In this regard, according to our data, nurses and nursing assistants had the highest risk for being subjected to violence, indirectly confirming that physical proximity to patients due to care assistance can increase the risk for attacks.²⁵ Although with a lower percentage in comparison with other studies, our study also evidenced that the most frequent violence was non-physical^{5,12,14,29,31,32} and the prevalent aggressors were patients.^{5,12,30,52,56} In our study, in line with others,^{6,25,44,48,51,55,64–67}professionals physically assaulted or verbally abused were younger than aggressors and more frequently females, whereas aggressors were more often males, who committed prevalently physical violence.

Clinical and organizational factors related to WPV

We reported WPV in all health units, but the typology and modality of aggressions were different, reflecting specific clinical and organizational issues. Psychiatry, emergency department, and geriatric wards were the most frequent places for WPV due to several factors concerning both patient pathology and modality of work.^{11,24,25,30,32,41,48,55,60} In line with other studies, we found that in emergency department and geriatrics, verbal violence was prevalent and usually committed by family members, caregivers, visitors. Diversely, physical violence perpetrated by patients was more frequent in SPDT and neurological and post-surgery intensive care, partially in line with other research.^{42,55,68–70} Verbal violence was more frequently exhibited by people in a lucid and normal state of consciousness, whereas physical violence was most often perpetrated by assailants with dementia or mental retardation or affected by other psychiatric disorders or conditioned by drugs and abuse substances.^29,71 These mental conditions can induce behavioral disinhibition and irritability, as well as leading to agitation and aggressiveness, symptoms that often represent the main reasons for hospitalization.^65,72,73 In particular, the highest number of physical attacks against workers was reported in our psychiatric area and violence appeared closely related to the psychiatric diseases of patients.^29,32,55 These data are in line with literature and are indirectly confirmed by the observation that, in psychiatry, the aggressor was mainly the patient, whereas, in emergency department the majority of aggressions was perpetrated by relatives and visitors.^42,55 We can infer different causes of violence, which are related to both patients and visitors or family members such as altered mental conditions, anxiety and worry for health treatments, excessive medical expectations, dissatisfactions with therapies, intolerance for long waiting times, and misunderstanding in communications or missing information.^{28,33,40,47,74}

Also, the place where aggression occurs can indirectly indicate the different origins of violence, which often represents an extreme behavior aimed at communicating discomfort and calling for help, although expressed in a paradoxical and unacceptable way. Patient’s room was the place with the highest number of aggressions reported, as in all other studies.⁶⁴ These data could suggest that the physical proximity of professionals to the patient could be interpreted by the patient, often in alarmed state, as a sort of personal space violation and induce his/her defensive behavior, which can escalate into aggression. Moreover, we have reported that, in emergency department, 63% of violent events took place in the waiting room.⁵⁵ Here, violence could symbolize the high level of anxiety and stress suffered by both patients and their relatives or caregivers in situations of trepidation and long waits, all factors which can favor the development of violence.^12,47,66,75 The majority of aggressions was reported during morning shifts, in line with some,^42,76 but not all, studies since discordant data are in the literature.²⁴ Our results evidenced that during the morning shift and at night, the violence was more frequently performed by patients, whereas during afternoon shifts, family members, caregivers, or visitors were the most frequent aggressors, suggesting that visiting hours can condition the moment of aggression.^12,32 This result indicates that correct visiting procedures and their clear communication during visits to the ward could prevent violence. Moreover, as suggested by our results, we emphasize that both male and female professionals should work together during shifts in order to be less exposed to violence and to better manage hostile behavior. Another important element that emerged from our research was that 72% of professionals were not able to foresee a violent event and did not have any premonition of danger before being assaulted.⁵⁵ This can be interpreted as a physiological defense, determined by the so-called psychological mechanism of “denial” that allows professionals to work in risk areas such as health care settings, but, at the same time, makes them more vulnerable. Therefore, adequate psychological preparation aimed at increasing awareness of violence risk could make professionals more prepared to safely manage hazardous situations.¹⁴

Consequences and reporting of violent events

In our study, as in most research on the subject, the main consequences reported by abused or assaulted professionals, especially those verbally abused, were to morale, such as fear, anger, irritation, anxiety, depression, humiliation, guilt, feelings of helplessness, and disappointment.^{11,13,14,26,28,33,53,77} These feelings, as reported in the literature, can reduce the empathy capacity of health care workers⁷⁸ and, sometimes, constitutes causes of burnout,^7,31,57 leading professionals to leave nursing or to change institution.⁶⁰ Stress and violence can interact in the workplace and their negative effects exponentially accumulate, leading professionals to a situation of exhaustion and conflicts as highlighted by some authors.^7,59

Our study highlighted that 84% of health care workers did not report violent events, in accordance with the literature,¹¹ which indicates many reasons for under-reporting of WPV: fear of retaliation from aggressor and his/her family, feelings of shame related to being the subject of aggression, or addiction to WPV considered an integral part of job.^14,23,24 Our data evidenced that only the most dramatic attacks with physical injuries are the situations that induce professionals to report the incident, whereas being professionals in some health units, such as neurological and post-surgery intensive care, where patients are often not aware of their aggressiveness due to an altered mental condition, disadvantaged incident reporting. Also, being female, among professionals, did not favor the denouncing of violence, probably due to cultural reasons.

Limitations and practical implications

The main limitation is the possibility that data related to violent incidents which occurred during the year before the administration of VIF can be distorted since they are based on professionals’ memory. More variables should be analyzed to describe this phenomenon in greater detail. Our results, limited to a single general hospital, cannot be generalized to all hospitals.

This study has important implications for clinical practice as it highlights the specific characteristics of violence expressed in different hospital settings, allowing us to tailor preventive interventions. Providing focused training programs aimed at reducing specific risk factors of violence can improve work conditions and favor effective and ethically correct health care.

Conclusion

Our data, in line with the literature, indicate different reasons and modalities of violence related to patients’ pathology; expectations of both patients and visitors regarding medical treatments; misunderstanding or confused communications among staff, patients, and their caregivers, anxiously waiting for, for example, diagnosis and treatment. Nevertheless, we can infer that WPV consists of two main types of violence: 1) physical violence performed by patients in an altered mental state, strongly related to their clinical condition, representing a symptom of diseases which need hospitalization, potentially very dangerous for health worker safety and 2) non-physical violence exhibited by visitors, family members, and caregivers of patients, in an apparent lucid and conscious state but dictated by trepidation, long and anxious waiting for patients’ prognosis, sometimes originating from the professional’s partial empathic comprehension or insufficiently clear communication. Therefore, we underline that the violence from patients, which needs to be managed like other symptoms, although more dangerous, can be difficult to prevent in hospital because it is often the reason for consultation and/or admission. Violence from visitors, family members, and caregivers should be more successfully prevented by correct and clear communication with them, showing an empathic interest in their distress.

WPV, which occurred during daily clinical activities when professionals were working together with other members of staff, was not foreseen by our professionals, who were probably more vulnerable to it since they had not had any premonition of being assaulted. We noted that verbal violence produced more frequent psychological distress than physical aggressiveness, but it was not frequently reported by our professionals. Only severe and dramatic physical violence was reported to hospital management and/or police, but not when the physical violence was perpetrated by patients in very regressed conditions and/or in unconscious state. In light of our results, we believe that it is essential to put in place preventive measures not only at organizational and structural level but also at individual level in order to increase the awareness of professionals to WPV risk and to prepare them to manage violence in an ethical, professional, and humanistic way. To develop effective strategies of violent event management it is important to favor incident reporting by staff for all violent episodes, from verbal offenses or threats to dangerous physical attacks, in order to implement analysis procedures, such as Clinical Audit and Root Causes Analyses, for understanding the causes of violent episodes. Violent incidents can undermine the physical and mental health of professionals, cause job dissatisfaction and, at the same time, can adversely affect the quality of care provided.

Finally, we conclude emphasizing that effective professional training regarding the management of violent events consists of good collaboration and communication among staff members, and constant monitoring and an empathetic approach – never symmetrically aggressive – to the patient, extended to family or caregivers, in order to prevent violence in the health workplace. Further studies are needed to investigate the causes and dynamics of violence in health care settings, since the variables related to this phenomenon are numerous and not always clearly identifiable.

Acknowledgment

We thank all health professionals who shared their valuable opinions by participating in this study.

Author contributions

PF and RDL prepared the design and the manuscript of this study. PF, MS, and RDL participated in the acquisition of data. PF, CA, and RDL performed the analysis and interpretation of data. All authors helped to draft the manuscript and approved the final version.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1.		National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Violence: occupational hazards in hospitals. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-101/pdfs/2002-101.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.
2.		American Nurses Association. Position statement on incivility, bullying, and workplace violence. Available from: http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/WorkplaceSafety/Healthy-Nurse/bullyingworkplaceviolence/Incivility-Bullying-and-Workplace-Violence.html. Accessed June 5, 2016.
3.		Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Guidelines for preventing workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers (Publication no. OSHA 3148-04R 2015). Available from: https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3148.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.
4.		Yassi A. Assault and abuse of health care workers in a large teaching hospital. CMAJ. 1994;151(9):1273–1279.
5.		Jiao M, Ning N, Li Y, et al. Workplace violence against nurses in Chinese hospitals: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e006719.
6.		International Labour Office, International Council of Nurses, World Health Organization, Public Services International. Framework guidelines for addressing workplace violence in the health sector. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_160908.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.
7.		di Martino V. Workplace violence in the health sector. Relationship between work stress and workplace violence in the health sector. Available from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/interpersonal/WVstresspaper.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.
8.		Gates DM. The epidemic of violence against healthcare workers. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(8):649–650.
9.		Kuehn BM. Violence in health care settings on rise. JAMA. 2010;304(5):511–512.
10.		World Health Organization. Workplace violence, 2012. Available from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/injury/work9/en/print.html. Accessed June 5, 2016.
11.		Magnavita N, Heponiemi T. Violence towards health care workers in a Public Health Care Facility in Italy: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:108.
12.		ALBashtawy M. Workplace violence against nurses in emergency departments in Jordan. Int Nurs Rev. 2013;60(4):550–555.
13.		Park M, Cho SH, Hong HJ. Prevalence and perpetrators of workplace violence by nursing unit and the relationship between violence and the perceived work environment. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015;47(1):87–95.
14.		Schablon A, Zeh A, Wendeler D, et al. Frequency and consequences of violence and aggression towards employees in the German healthcare and welfare system: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(5):e001420.
15.		Wolf LA, Delao AM, Perhats C. Nothing changes, nobody cares: understanding the experience of emergency nurses physically or verbally assaulted while providing care. J Emerg Nurs. 2014;40(4):305–310.
16.		Ministero della Salute. Recommendation to prevent acts of violence against health workers. Recommendation no. 8, 2007. Available from: http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_721_allegato.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.
17.		Magnavita N. The exploding spark: workplace violence in an infectious disease hospital – a longitudinal study. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:316358.
18.		Ministero del Lavoro, della Salute e delle Politiche Sociali. Osservatorio nazionale sugli eventi sentinella [Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Policies. National Observatory on sentinel events. Protocol for Monitoring the Sentinel Events]. Protocollo per il Monitoraggio degli Eventi Sentinella [Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Policies. Methods of analysis for clinical risk management]. Available from: http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/c_17_pubblicazioni_1783_allegato.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016. Italian.
19.		Ministero del Lavoro, della Salute e delle Politiche Sociali. Metodi di analisi per la gestione del rischio clinico [Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Policies. Methods of analysis for clinical risk management]. Root Cause Analysis – RCA – Analisi delle Cause Profonde, 2009. Available from: http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/c_17_pubblicazioni_1103_allegato.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016. Italian.
20.		Swedish Work Environment Authority. The Swedish information system on occupational accidents and work-related diseases. Available from: http://adapt.it/adapt-indice-a-z/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/isa_2012.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2016.
21.		Winstanley S, Whittington R. Aggression towards health care staff in a UK general hospital: variation among professions and departments. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(1):3–10.
22.		Hahn S, Müller M, Needham I, Dassen T, Kok G, Halfens RJ. Factors associated with patient and visitor violence experienced by nurses in general hospitals in Switzerland: a cross-sectional survey. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(23–24):3535–3546.
23.		Algwaiz WM, Alghanim SA. Violence exposure among health care professionals in Saudi public hospitals. A preliminary investigation. Saudi Med J. 2012;33(1):76–82.
24.		Kitaneh M, Hamdan M. Workplace violence against physicians and nurses in Palestinian public hospitals: a cross-sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:469.
25.		Kowalenko T, Gates D, Gillespie GL, Succop P, Mentzel TK. Prospective study of violence against ED workers. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(1):197–205.
26.		Terzoni S, Ferrara P, Cornelli R, Ricci C, Oggioni C, Destrebecq A. Violence and unsafety in a major Italian hospital: experience and perceptions of health care workers. Med Lav. 2015;106(6):403–411.
27.		Guglielmetti C, Gilardi S, Licata M, De Luca G. The healthcare operators’ experience with aggressive patients and their visitors: a cross-sectional study in four clinical departments. Med Lav. 2016;107(3):223–234.
28.		Mantzuranis G, Fafliora E, Bampalis VG, Christopoulou I. Assessment and analysis of workplace violence in a Greek tertiary hospital. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2015;70(5):256–264.
29.		Pompeii LA, Schoenfisch AL, Lipscomb HJ, Dement JM, Smith CD, Upadhyaya M. Physical assault, physical threat, and verbal abuse perpetrated against hospital workers by patients or visitors in six U.S. hospitals. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58(11):1194–1204.
30.		Spector PE, Zhou ZE, Che XX. Nurse exposure to physical and nonphysical violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: a quantitative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(1):72–84.
31.		Alameddine M, Mourad Y, Dimassi H. A national study on nurses’ exposure to occupational violence in Lebanon: prevalence, consequences and associated factors. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137105.
32.		Edward KL, Ousey K, Warelow P, Lui S. Nursing and aggression in the workplace: a systematic review. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(12):653–654, 656–659.
33.		Pompeii L, Dement J, Schoenfisch A, et al. Perpetrator, worker and workplace characteristics associated with patient and visitor perpetrated violence (type II) on hospital workers: a review of the literature and existing occupational injury data. J Safety Res. 2013;44:57–64.
34.		Acik Y, Deveci SE, Gunes G, et al. Experience of workplace violence during medical speciality training in Turkey. Occup Med (Lond). 2008;58(5):361–366.
35.		Magin P, Adams J, Joy E, Ireland M, Heaney S, Darab S. Violence in general practice: perceptions of cause and implications for safety. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54(9):1278–1284.
36.		Kowalenko T, Walters BL, Khare RK, et al. Workplace violence: a survey of emergency physicians in the state of Michigan. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(2):142–147.
37.		Carmi-Iluz T, Pelag R, Freud T, Shvartzman P. Verbal and physical violence towards hospital- and community-based physicians in the Negev: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:54.
38.		Behnam M, Tillotson RD, Davis SM, Hobbs GR. Violence in the emergency department: a national survey of emergency medicine residents and attending physicians. J Emerg Med. 2011;40(5):565–579.
39.		AbuAIRub RF, Al Khawaldeh AT. Workplace physical violence among hospital nurses and physicians in underserved areas in Jordan. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23(13–14):1937–1947.
40.		Baykan Z, Öktem İS, Çetinkaya F, Naçar M. Physician exposure to violence: a study performed in Turkey. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2015;21(3):291–297.
41.		Wu JC, Tung TH, Chen PY, Chen YL, Lin YW, Chen FL. Determinants of workplace violence against clinical physicians in hospitals. J Occup Health. 2015;57(6):540–547.
42.		Ayranci U. Violence toward health care workers in emergency departments in west Turkey. J Emerg Med. 2005;28(3):361–365.
43.		Camerino D, Estryn-Behar M, Conway PM, van Der Heijden BI, Hasselhorn HM. Work-related factors and violence among nursing staff in the European NEXT study: a longitudinal cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(1):35–50.
44.		Gillespie GL, Gates DM, Miller M, Howard PK. Workplace violence in healthcare settings: risk factors and protective strategies. Rehabil Nurs. 2010;35(5):177–184.
45.		Hahn S, Müller M, Hantikainen V, Kok G, Dassen T, Halfens RJ. Risk factors associated with patient and visitor violence in general hospitals: results of a multiple regression analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(3):374–385.
46.		Senuzun Ergün F, Karadakovan A. Violence towards nursing staff in emergency departments in one Turkish city. Int Nurs Rev. 2005;52(2):154–160.
47.		Hamdan M, Abu Hamra A. Workplace violence towards workers in the emergency departments of Palestinian hospitals: a cross-sectional study. Hum Resour Health. 2015;13:28.
48.		Zampieron A, Galeazzo M, Turra S, Buja A. Perceived aggression towards nurses: study in two Italian health institutions. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(15–16):2329–2341.
49.		Nachreiner NM, Gerberich SG, Ryan AD, McGovern PM. Minnesota nurses’ study: perceptions of violence and the work environment. Ind Health. 2007;45(5):672–678.
50.		Almvik R, Rasmussen K, Woods P. Challenging behaviour in the elderly-monitoring violent incidents. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;21(4):368–374.
51.		Gerberich SG, Church TR, McGovern PM, et al. An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: the Minnesota Nurses’ Study. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(6):495–503.
52.		Alexander C, Fraser J. Occupational violence in an Australian healthcare setting: implications for managers. J Healthc Manag. 2004;49(6):377–390.
53.		Zeng JY, An FR, Xiang YT, et al. Frequency and risk factors of workplace violence on psychiatric nurses and its impact on their quality of life in China. Psychiatry Res. 2013;210(2):510–514.
54.		Chapman R, Styles I, Perry L, Combs S. Examining the characteristics of workplace violence in one non-tertiary hospital. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(3–4):479–488.
55.		Ferri P, Reggiani F, Di Lorenzo R. Aggressive behavior toward nursing staff in three different health care settings. [corrected]. Prof Inferm. 2011;64(3):143–150. Erratum in: Prof Inferm. 2014;67(3):192.
56.		Speroni KG, Fitch T, Dawson E, Dugan L, Atherton M. Incidence and cost of nurse workplace violence perpetrated by hospital patients or patient visitors. J Emerg Nurs. 2014;40(3):218–228.
57.		Evers W, Tomic W, Brouwers A. Effects of aggressive behavior and perceived self-efficacy on burnout among staff of homes for the elderly. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2001;22(4):439–454.
58.		Opie T, Lenthall S, Dollard M, et al. Trends in workplace violence in the remote area nursing workforce. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2010;27(4):18–23.
59.		Zafar W, Khan UR, Siddiqui SA, Jamali S, Razzak JA. Workplace violence and self-reported psychological health: coping with post-traumatic stress, mental distress, and burnout among physicians working in the emergency departments compared to other specialties in Pakistan. J Emerg Med. 2016;50(1):167–177.e1.
60.		Estryn-Behar M, van der Heijden B, Camerino D, et al. Violence risks in nursing – results from the European ‘NEXT’ Study. Occup Med (Lond). 2008;58(2):107–114.
61.		Arnetz JE. The Violent Incident Form (VIF): a practical instrument for the registration of violent incidents in the health care workplace. Work Stress. 1998;12(1):17–28.
62.		Magnavita N, Heponiemi T. Workplace violence against nursing students and nurses: an Italian experience. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2011;43(2):203–210.
63.		Stata Corp LP. Stata Version 12. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Stata Corp LP; 2012.
64.		Nan E, Albini E, Zoni S, Lucchini R. A method for the measurement of workplace violence in health care workers. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2007;29(Suppl 3):S362–S364.
65.		Salerno S, Dimitri L, Talamanca IF. Occupational risk due to violence in a psychiatric ward. J Occup Health. 2009;51(4):349–354.
66.		James A, Madeley R, Dove A. Violence and aggression in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2006;23(6):431–434.
67.		Eagly AH, Steffen VJ. Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychol Bull. 1986;100(3):309–330.
68.		Findorff MJ, McGovern PM, Wall M, Gerberich SG, Alexander B. Risk factors for work related violence in a health care organization. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5):296–302.
69.		Rodríguez-Acosta RL, Myers DJ, Richardson DB, Lipscomb HJ, Chen JC, Dement JM. Physical assault among nursing staff employed in acute care. Work. 2010;35(2):191–200.
70.		Esmaeilpour M, Salsali M, Ahmadi F. Workplace violence against Iranian nurses working in emergency departments. Int Nurs Rev. 2011;58(1):130–137.
71.		Duxbury J, Whittington R. Causes and management of patient aggression and violence: staff and patient perspectives. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50(5):469–478.
72.		Di Lorenzo R, Baraldi S, Ferrara M, Mimmi S, Rigatelli M. Physical restraints in an Italian psychiatric ward: clinical reasons and staff organization problems. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012;48(2):95–107.
73.		Lorenzo RD, Miani F, Formicola V, Ferri P. Clinical and organizational factors related to the reduction of mechanical restraint application in an acute ward: an 8-year retrospective analysis. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2014;10:94–102.
74.		Gacki-Smith J, Juarez AM, Boyett L, Homeyer C, Robinson L, MacLean SL. Violence against nurses working in US emergency departments. J Nurs Adm. 2009;39(7–8):340–349.
75.		Pich J, Hazelton M, Sundin D, Kable A. Patient-related violence at triage: a qualitative descriptive study. Int Emerg Nurs. 2011;19(1):12–19.
76.		Shoghi M, Sanjari M, Shirazi F, Heidari S, Salemi S, Mirzabeigi G. Workplace violence and abuse against nurses in hospitals in Iran. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2008;2(3):184–193.
77.		Needham I, Abderhalden C, Halfens RJ, Fischer JE, Dassen T. Non-somatic effects of patient aggression on nurses: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;49(3):283–296.
78.		Ferri P, Guerra E, Marcheselli L, Cunico L, Di Lorenzo R. Empathy and burnout: an analytic cross-sectional study among nurses and nursing students. Acta Biomed. 2015;86(Suppl 2):104–115.