Inter-rater reliability of the occupational violence risk assessment tool for emergency departments

被引:3
|
作者
Cabilan, C. J. [1 ,2 ,6 ]
Eley, Robert [1 ,3 ]
Snoswell, Centaine [4 ]
Jones, Andrew T. [5 ]
Johnston, Amy N. B. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Princess Alexandra Hosp, Emergency Dept, 199 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Fac Med, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
[4] Univ Queensland, Ctr Online Hlth, Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Brisbane, Qld 4102, Australia
[5] Univ Queensland, Inst Mol Biosci, QCIF Facil Adv Bioinformat, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
[6] 199 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia
关键词
Nurses; Emergency nursing; Risk assessment; Workplace violence; Risk factors; Psychometrics; Instrument development; Nursing education; Emergency department; AGGRESSION; IMPLEMENTATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.auec.2022.07.007
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Background: The three-item occupational violence (OV) risk assessment tool was developed and validated for use in emergency departments (EDs). It prompts review of each patient's aggression history, behaviours, and clinical presentation. However, confidence around representativeness and generalisability are needed before widescale adoption; hence we measured the inter-rater reliability of the tool among a large group of emergency nurses.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between Sep 2021 and Jan 2022. Nurses were directed to a website that hosted an e-learning module about the tool. They were asked to apply the tool to two video scenarios of typical patient presentations. Demographic data, including years of emergency experience, were collected to contextualise their responses. Gwet's Agreement Coefficients (AC1) were calculated to determine inter-rater reliability.Results: There were 135 participants: typically female, under the age of 40 years, with more than 3 years of emergency nursing experience. Overall, there was excellent inter-rater agreement (AC1 =0.752, p = 0.001). This was consistent when years of ED experience was stratified: 0-2 years, AC1 = 0.764, p = 0.002; 3-5 years, AC1 = 0.826, p = 0.001; 6-10 years, AC1 = 0.751, p < 0.001; 11-15 years, AC1 = 0.659, p = 0.004; >= 16 years, AC1 = 0.799, p < 0.001.Conclusion: The three-item OV risk assessment tool has excellent inter-rater reliability across a large sample of emergency nurses. (c) 2022 College of Emergency Nursing Australasia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:54 / 58
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] OWAS inter-rater reliability
    Lins, Christian
    Fudickar, Sebastian
    Hein, Andreas
    APPLIED ERGONOMICS, 2021, 93
  • [22] Inter-rater reliability of the Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction
    Oba, Hikaru
    Hiyama, Masami
    Okamoto, Haruka
    Onoda, Rika
    Matsuoka, Teruyuki
    Sato, Shinichi
    Narumoto, Jin
    PSYCHOGERIATRICS, 2023, 23 (04) : 667 - 674
  • [23] Inter-rater reliability of a standardized spasticity diagnosis assessment
    Gill, C. E.
    Davis, T. L.
    Allen, L.
    Wang, L.
    Charles, D.
    MOVEMENT DISORDERS, 2011, 26 : S366 - S366
  • [24] Inter-rater reliability of the Nottingham method of stereognosis assessment
    Gaubert, CS
    Mockett, SP
    CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2000, 14 (02) : 153 - 159
  • [25] AN ASSESSMENT OF AN EVALUATION INSTRUMENT FOR INCREASING INTER-RATER RELIABILITY
    STANGEL, I
    CRANTON, PF
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1984, 63 : 181 - 181
  • [26] Inter-rater reliability of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START)
    Timmins, Katie L. E.
    Evans, Lydia
    Tully, Ruth J.
    JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY & PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 29 (06): : 968 - 988
  • [27] INTER-RATER RELIABILITY FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE RATER
    SORENSON, AG
    GROSS, CF
    PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE JOURNAL, 1957, 35 (06): : 365 - 368
  • [28] The inter-rater reliability of the Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment tool after brain surgery
    Galloway, Adam Marco
    Killan, Edward C.
    McHugh, Gretl A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THERAPY AND REHABILITATION, 2019, 26 (12):
  • [29] Development and Inter-Rater Reliability of the Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Causality Assessment Tool
    Gallagher, Ruairi M.
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    Mason, Jennifer R.
    Bird, Kim A.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    Nunn, Anthony J.
    Turner, Mark A.
    Smyth, Rosalind L.
    Pirmohamed, Munir
    PLOS ONE, 2011, 6 (12):
  • [30] The Scarbase Duo®: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and validity of a compact dual scar assessment tool
    Fell, Matthew
    Meirte, Jill
    Anthonissen, Mieke
    Maertens, Koen
    Pleat, Jonathon
    Moortgat, Peter
    BURNS, 2016, 42 (02) : 336 - 344