Theme article
Workplace Violence Intervention Research Workshop, April 5–7, 2000, Washington, DC1: Background, rationale, and summary

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00289-0Get rights and content

Introduction

The Workplace Violence Intervention Research Workshop, held on April 5–7, 2000, in Washington, DC, was an outgrowth of plans made in the fall of 1995 by the University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research Center (UI IPRC). In October 1995, the UI IPRC and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) co-sponsored the National Violence Prevention Conference in Des Moines, Iowa. Violence in the workplace was a major theme at this conference, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guided development of this theme.

Through this conference and discussions with the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) and the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors (NIOSH BSC), the need for intervention research in workplace violence became clear. James Merchant, who directs the UI IPRC Public Policy Core, also served on both the NACOSH and NIOSH BSC. Under Dr. Merchant’s leadership, the participants developed the intervention research workshop concept and included the concept in the UI IPRC’s 5-year competitive renewal grant application.

The Workplace Violence Intervention Research Workshop’s goal was to examine issues related to violence in the workplace and to develop recommended research intervention strategies to address this burgeoning public health concern. The workshop included 37 invited participants who represent diverse occupations within industry; organized labor; municipal, state, and federal governments; and academia (see Appendix I).

To control the number and affiliation of participants, we intentionally limited attendance at the April 2000 workshop to “by invitation only.” Although we capped attendance at a workable size of approximately 35 people, we sought to strike a balance among representatives of academia, government, industry, and organized labor. We think we achieved this objective but unfortunately not without having to tell numerous interested and well-qualified individuals that we could not accommodate them at the workshop.

Below, we summarize workplace violence–related issues and recommendations identified at the workshop. The articles in this theme issue present a more thorough discussion of each topic:

  • Extent of the problem and prevention: Peek-Asa, Runyan, and Zwerling1

  • Laws and regulations: Barish2

  • Industry: Wilkinson3

  • Labor: Rosen4

  • Moving forward on a research agenda: Runyan5

Section snippets

The extent of the problem

Workplace violence garners increasing attention because of growing awareness of the toll violent events have on workers and workplaces. Despite existing research, significant gaps remain in our knowledge of the causes and potential solutions. Nor do we understand the extent of violence in the workplace or the number of victims.

In 1998, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded more than 700 homicides in workplaces in the United States. Although this number declined from a high of 1080 in 1994,

Prevention

Three general approaches to preventing or responding to workplace violence are (1) environmental: lighting, entrances and exits, security hardware, and other engineering controls; (2) organizational/administrative: developing programs, policies, and work practices aimed at maintaining a safe working environment; and (3) behavioral/interpersonal: training staff to anticipate, recognize, and respond to conflict and actual violence in the workplace.

We do not have adequate research into the

Federal

No national legislation or federal regulations specifically address the prevention of workplace violence. In the early 1990s, OSHA attempted to include potential risks of violence in its “general duty clause” for employers to reduce or eliminate recognized workplace hazards. However, the loss of a first-level appeal before the OSHA Review Commission may have contributed to a more conservative posture by OSHA with respect to workplace violence, which since that time has focused on publishing

Industry

Some employers have responded to the problem of workplace violence by implementing measures to reduce the risk to their employees. Different industries have different kinds of risks depending on a multitude of factors, including the type of business, populations served, management, employees, location of the workplace, layout of the work area, and the relationship of that business with the community.

Some employers have attempted to increase safety in a number of areas, including

  • physical

Labor

In the past decade, representatives of organized labor have pushed for recognition of workplace violence as an occupational hazard, not just a criminal justice issue. Of particular concern is the high rate of violent incidents affecting health care workers (Type II violence). On some psychiatric units, for example, assault rates on staff are more than 100 cases per 100 workers per year. Unions representing workers in the health care industry suspect that short staffing may play a role in this

Recommended workplace violence research agenda

Workshop participants met in three breakout group sessions to identify specific areas of research needed for each of the four types of workplace violence. Table 1 summarizes the intervention research questions identified.

The workshop participants recommended that NIOSH take the lead in developing a national research initiative to address these workplace violence–related questions. In the course of developing this extramural research program, NIOSH should consult with the NCIPC and the National

Conclusion

Workplace violence affects us all. Not only do victims of violence bear the toll but so do their coworkers, families, employers, and every worker at risk of violent assault—in other words, virtually all of us. However, understanding the burden of workplace violence is still in its infancy. Much research work remains undone, particularly in surveillance and intervention. Without basic information on who is most affected and which preventive measures work in what settings, we cannot move forward

Acknowledgements

This workshop would not have been successful without the support and hard work of several agencies and individuals. We would like to thank the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the generous financial support that made the workshop possible. We received valuable advice throughout the process from the workshop’s planning committee, which consisted of Ann Brockhaus from Organization Resources Counselors; Lynn

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (5)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (47)

  • 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

    2013, Journal of Safety Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    Despite the publication of numerous studies over the past two decades, little is known about the risk factors of Type II violence in the hospital setting, as well as rates of violence and changes in these rates over time. In 2001, a report by a team of violence research experts highlighted the lack of informative data pertaining to nonfatal workplace violence relative to the “enormous scope of the problem” (Merchant & Lundell, 2001; Peek-Asa, Runyan, & Zwerling, 2001). The implementation of coordinated surveillance efforts of nonfatal workplace violence for purposes of creating prevention programs based in scientific evidence was encouraged.

  • Hospital-based shootings in the United States: 2000 to 2011

    2012, Annals of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Our finding of a relatively high case fatality rate of 55% among innocent victims may be related to several factors, including the potential for close proximity of the perpetrator to the victim, the assumed lack of anticipation by victims in most cases, the frailty of ill victims, and the determination of the shooter. Established classification of workplace violence does not appear to adequately describe hospital shooting–related violence (see Appendix E1).3,13,14 Accordingly, we advance a further classification based on motive.

  • Workplace violence in emergency medicine: Current knowledge and future directions

    2012, Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Additional research is needed on the best practices for ED-specific security measures, as well as the optimal communication between the institutional security system and local law enforcement agencies. This category includes the development of programs, policies, and work practices to promote a safe working environment at the institutional, local, state, and national level (47). Both the Emergency Nurses Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians recognize violence in the ED as a serious issue and encourage clinical care providers and health organizations in general to take steps to prevent and reduce risks of WPV (9,48).

  • Workplace violence intervention effectiveness: A systematic literature review

    2009, Safety Science
    Citation Excerpt :

    Terrorist acts condoned or sponsored by organizations. This review also incorporates an alternate typology (Merchant and Lundell, 2001) by category of intervention (note that individual studies may evaluate a mix or combination of interventions): Environmental: lighting entrances and exits and using security hardware and other engineering controls—e.g., cash-drop boxes in convenience stores and bullet-proof glass.

View all citing articles on Scopus
1

The full text of this article is temporarily available until February 2002 via AJPM Online at www:elsevier.com/locate/ajpmonline.

View full text