Alahmadi and Makhdoom: The magnitude and determinants of workplace violence among family medicine residents at the joint program of Family Medicine in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 2020


Introduction

Violence at working places is very much prevalent in almost all institutions across all countries dealing with general public besides health workers in hospitals. Health institutions and hospitals have high incidence of work place violence because it provides services which relates to emotional aspect of patients and their family members. The sense of dissatisfaction among patients occurs when they have the perception of less care and service on the behalf of doctors and health care providers. This leads to violence either in the form of physical retaliation or verbal abuse.1 Workplace violence in the health care sectors is defined as the incidents where health care workers are abused, threatened or assaulted in their working places. The WHO definition of workplace violence includes physical violence and psychological violence.2 Physical violence consists of hitting, kicking, shooting, barring, pushing, biting, sexual harassment and rape. Psychological violence is an intentional act against a person or a collective force that results in physical mental, spiritual, moral and social damage that includes verbal abuse, threats, insult, and harassment.2 Healthcare workers including physicians are at high risk of workplace violence and aggression. Physical violence or verbal aggression may cause psychological effects and harm among physicians, interfering with their professional performance at work and leading to job dissatisfaction, intention to leave and increasing stress and anxiety among them, and all of these consequences could affect the quality of care during their work. Health care workers in particular are at high risk of workplace violence, they have 16 times risk of workplace violence more than other service workers have.3

Several studies have reported the prevalence against Health care workers. But there were differences in assessing the pattern of violence, definition of violence and type of health care workers. In a survey from different regions in US, it was reported that 74% of the Health care workers experienced workplace violence occasionally, 2% always and 19% frequently.4 In a cross sectional survey of Health care workers of 19 hospitals in Japan, it was observed that a prevalence of 36% workplace violence by patients and their companions.5 Moreover, a cross sectional study among health care professionals in Saudi public hospitals found that 67.4% of healthcare workers were victims of violence.6 Furthermore healthcare workers will face workplace violent events at least once during their careers.7 It can be observed that, annual prevalence of work place violence against all health workers in the general hospitals of many countries has been high, although these data are difficult to compare.8, 9, 10, 11 Most studies reported that non-physical violence, in the form of psychological violence or verbal abuse, is the most frequent type of aggression in all health care settings. The work place violence which was reported varied according to the type of violence where 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.12

In Middle East region number of studies examined the workplace violence of health care workers. In a cross-sectional study done in Egypt, where 970 nurses of four hospitals and 12 primary health care centers had participated, 28% reported at least one type of violence.13 In another cross-sectional study done in Jordon, among 227 nurses working in emergency departments it was shown that 76% of the nurses were exposed to at least one type of violence.14 In a similar study among 240 health care workers of five public hospitals in Palestine, it was found that 80% of the health care workers were exposed to at least one type of violence.15

In Saudi Arabia, there was difficultly in estimating the magnitude of the Work place violence due to lack of reporting and other factors. In a cross-sectional study across 12 family medical centers in Riyadh, it was found that 45.6% of 270 health care workers experienced some sort of violence during the 12 months prior to the study.16 In a self-reporting questionnaire study in Al-Hassam of 1091 primary health care professionals revealed that 28% suffered from workplace violence.17 A cross-sectional study at King Fahd Hospital showed that 30.7% of 391 nurses were exposed to verbal abuse.18 In another cross-sectional study which was carried out in Riyadh among 600 physicians and nurses it was found that 67.4% were exposed to workplace violence, and that nurses were more susceptible than physicians.19 In the study of Emergency Departments of 3 hospitals in Riyadh, 89.3% of 121 nurses experienced a violent incident in the 12 months prior to the study.20 In another study of Emergency departments in Taluk, 90.7% of 129 had history of workplace violence.21

The literature indicated about the factors which were contributing to the workplace violence against health care workers are either related to offenders, colleagues and the workplace environment. The most significant factors reported in different studies towards patients were mental health disorders such as schizophrenia, anxiety, acute stress reaction, dementia, suicidal ideation, alcohol and drug intoxication, male gender, and older age, being a victim of violence, and having access to firearms. Factors related to health care workers included serving volatile patients in emergency departments and psychiatric units, under-staffed working conditions, working alone, and long working hours. Factors related to the workplace included long waiting times for getting service, overcrowded conditions, uncomfortable waiting rooms, poor environmental design, and poorly lit corridors, rooms, parking lots, and unrestricted movement of the public, inadequate security and lack of surveillance video cameras, lack of staff training, and lack of policies for preventing and managing violence.22, 23

This study was carried out to measure the prevalence and pattern of workplace violence and its associated factors among the family medicine residents of the joint program of Family Medicine in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Also to assess family medicine residents perceptions towards workplace violence.

Materials and Methods

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted among the family medicine residents level1 to level 4 (R1-R4) at the joint program of Family medicine in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia during Jan. to June 2020. A structures questionnaire which consists of demographic data, occupational history and reporting of violence was used to collect the data. Using a prevalence of violence exposure, 67% among health care workers in Saudi Public hospitals,4 with a precision of ±7%, at 0.05 level of significance the required sample size will be 173. As the total number of residents are 180, consecutive non-sampling was used to select the residents. All residents were approached through mobile phone numbers and email ids. Upon their willingness to participate in the study an electronic questionnaire was distributed and responses were obtained. The Institutional Ethics Committee has approved the study. All data were kept confidential and used only for purpose of research. Informed consent was obtained from all the Residents. Data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0 version statistical software (IBM Inc., Chicago, USA). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequencies and percentages) were used to describe the study and outcome variables. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to test and measure the association between the categorical study and outcome variables and to compare the distribution of categorical responses. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was used to report the statistical significance of results.

Results

Out of the 155 family medicine residents, there were 98(63.2%) female residents. The mean age of residents was 28.3 years. More than 95% of them were Saudi nationals and 67 (44.4%) of them were married. The level of residency was evenly distributed across the 4 years (R1 to R4). (Table 1)

Table 1

Characteristics of Family Medicine Residents (n=155)

Characteristics

No. (%)

Age in years (Mean & Sd.,)

28.3(2.5)

Gender

Male

57(36.8)

Female

98(63.2)

Nationality

Saudi

150(96.8)

Non-Saudi

5(3.2)

Marital status(n=151)

Single

84(55.6)

Married

67(44.4)

Residency level

R1

33(21.3)

R2

39(25.2)

R3

44(28.4)

R4

39(25.2)

The residents were asked to respond the statements related to their exposure of education in management of conflict situations, where 58.1% of them had responded positively that they were able to manage a conflict situation which is statistically significantly higher proportion (p<0.0001). Only 30.3% of them agreed that they had taken lectures/ workshops about conflict management during their family medicine residency program which is statistically significantly lower proportion (p=0.028). And 71% of them had contradicted that they did not take any lectures or workshops about de-escalation techniques during their family medicine residency program which is a higher proportion and statistically significant (p<0.0001). (Table 2)

Also the residents were asked to respond the statements related to violence reporting, where 47.1% of them had responded that there is a system for reporting violence in the current rotation/course and the remaining residents had responded as ‘no’ and ‘I don’t know’ (p<0.0001) and only 18.1% of them had mentioned that they know how to use the system of reporting which is statistically significantly lower proportion out of 155 residents (p<0.0001). And there is no statistically significant (p=0.556) difference in the three option (yes, no and I don’t know) responses for the statement ‘Is there encouragement to report violence event ?’ About 40.6% of them had agreed that if there is a system of reporting, it will be effective and 45.8% of them had responded as ‘I don’t know’ which is statistically significant (p<0.0001). The prevalence of workplace violence during their residency was obtained by asking the statement “did you face any kind of workplace violence (verbal or non-verbal) during your residency”, where the 72(46.5%; 95% CI: 38.46% to 54.68%) residents had responded positively and the remaining 83 (53.5%) had mentioned as ‘no’, where these binary responses were not statistically significant (p=0.377).(Table 2)

From the 72 residents who had faced the workplace violence during their residency were asked about the place, time and type of violence. The responses were quantified as multiple responses. The outpatient (58.3%) & Emergency department (45.8%) were the places where the violence had occurred, and 54(75%) residents had mentioned that the violence had occurred in Ministry of health sector during their training followed by 12(16.7%) at Armed forces of medical services sector. Most the residents had faced verbal violence (82.1%) and the incidence of violence has happened in morning shift (66.7%), whereas 71(98.6%) residents had mentioned that violence incidence has happened in inside health institution facility. About the characteristics of persons who were involved in violence, majority of them male(72.2%), 59.7% of them in age group of 21-45 years, 66.7% of them patients themselves, 26.4% were companions and remaining 23.6% of them were Doctors who were involved in workplace violence. Towards the reaction to violent event, 51.4% of residents had done nothing, whereas remaining had reported to their supervisor (31.9%), consulted their colleague or friend (19.4%). (Table 3)

Also the affected residents were asked to their perceptions towards the reasons for reporting violence incidents, cause of incidents and consequences of violent incidents in working places, where 27.5% of them felt that ‘it is not important to report about the violent incident, 29.4% of them did not know who to report and 29.4% of them felt it was useless. Towards the cause of violence events, 47.2% of residents felt that it was due to ‘lack of punishment for offender’, 40.3% of them as ‘overcrowding’, 37.5% as ‘long waiting time’ and 34.7% of them felt that it was due to misunderstanding with the patients. For the consequence of violent event, 60% of affected residents had done ‘nothing’ and 27.1% had a consequence of ‘decrease in their working performance. (Table 4)

Table 2

Distribution of Family Medicine resident’s responses towards exposure of education in management of conflict situations, violence reporting and prevalence of facing working place violence

Statements

No. (%)

χ2-value

p-value

In general, do you think you are able to manage a conflict situation?

Yes

90(58.1)

69.84

<0.0001

No

6(3.8)

Certain

59(38.1)

During family medicine residency program did you take any lectures or workshops about conflict management?

Yes

47(30.3)

7.17

0.028

No

67(43.2)

I don't remember

41(28.5)

During family medicine residency program did you take any lectures or workshops about de-escalation techniques?

Yes

11(7.1)

103.91

<0.0001

No

110(71.0)

I don't remember

34(21.9)

Is there a system for reporting violence in the current rotation/course?

Yes

73(47.1)

33.69

<0.0001

No

18(11.6)

I don't know

64(41.3)

If available, do you know how to use the system of reporting?

Yes

28(18.1)

16.73

<0.0001

No

67(43.2)

I don't know

60(38.7)

Is there encouragement to report violence event?

Yes

58(37.4)

1.17

0.556

No

49(31.6)

I don't know

48(31.0)

If there is a system, do you think it is effective?

Yes

63(40.6)

27.92

<0.0001

No

21(13.5)

I don't know

71(45.8)

Did you face any kind of workplace violence (verbal or Non-verbal) during your residency?

Yes

72(46.5)

0.78

0.377

No

83(53.5)

Table 3

Distribution of responses towards place, time, type & characteristics of persons involved in workplace violence with Family medicine residents (n=72)

Items

No. (%)*

Department where violence happened

Inpatient

23(31.9)

Outpatient

42(58.3)

ER

33(45.8)

Other place

2(2.8)

Sector of training where violence event happened

Ministry of health

54(75)

Armed forces of medical services

12(16.7)

Joint program of FM(course)

3(4.2)

KFSH & RC

1(1.4)

Private sector

6(8.3)

University hospital/clinics

9(12.5)

What type of violence did you face?

Physical

6(7.1)

Verbal

69(82.1)

Intimidation

9(10.7)

When was the incidence happened?

Morning shift

48(66.7)

Evening shift

20(27.8)

Nigh shift

11(15.3)

I don't remember

9(12.5)

Gender of the offenders

Male

Female

52(72.2))

Age of the offender

40(55.6)

<=20

10(13.9)

21-45

43(59.7)

>45

34(47.2)

Person who attacked

Patient

48(66.7)

Companion

19(26.4)

Doctor

17(23.6)

What was your reaction to violent event?

Nothing

37(51.4)

Report to supervisor

23(31.9)

Request to move from that department

2(2.4)

Consult colleague or friend

14(19.4)

Report to police

1(1.4)

Other

7(9.7)

Table 4

Distribution of Family medicine resident’s perceptions towards aftermath (reasons & consequences) of violent incidents in working places

Items

No (%)*

Reasons for not reporting about the violent incident (n=51)

It is not important

14(27.5)

Felt shamed

2(3.9)

Felt guilty

1(2.0)

Afraid of negative consequences

8(15.7)

Did not know who to report

15(29.4)

Did not know how to report

1(2.0)

Useless

15(29.4)

Other

4(7.8)

Cause of violent event(n=72)

Unmet service demand

14(19.4)

Lack of punishment for offender

34(47.2)

Overcrowding

29(40.3)

Long waiting time

27(37.5)

Misunderstanding

25(34.7)

Reaction to injury

1(1.4)

Others

1(1.4)

Consequence of violent event(n=70)

Nothing

42(60)

Absenteeism

3(4.3)

Injury need medical care

2(2.9)

I was punished

1(1.4)

Decrease performance work

19(27.1)

Felt ashamed or guilty

8(11.4)

Others

5(7.1)

Data did not provide any statistically significant association between the prevalence of workplace violence and the family medicine resident’s gender (χ2=0.025, p=0.873), marital status (χ2=0.282, p=0.595) and their level of residency (χ2=3.94, p=0.268).

Discussion

Health care workers and doctors were having an occupational health hazard in the form of working place violence. This study among family medicine residents had found that most of them did not have any exposure to any lectures/workshops about conflict management also about de-escalation techniques. And most of the residents were not aware of presence of any system of reporting violence in their current rotation, even if available most of them do not know how to use the system of reporting. Our study revealed a self-reported prevalence of 46.5% workplace violence (verbal and non-verbal) by resident doctors of family medicine during their residency period. This prevalence is much less than that reported by Ori et al. in India24 where 78.3% of postgraduate students had faced at least one form of violence during their entire residency period. The difference in the prevalence could be due to the duration of exposure, different definition of workplace violence and different geographical location. However, the findings of our study slightly higher with the study conducted by Newman et al. In Uganda where 39% of health workers reported experiencing at least one form of workplace violence in the previous 12 months.25 Among the three types of violence (Physical, Verbal & Intimidation) in our study, verbal violence (82.1%) was the most common form of violence. This finding too is consistent with other studies.24, 26 No significant association was observed between workplace violence and gender of residents. Our findings contradict to those findings by Katonah and Hamad from Palestine27 reported that gender was an influencing factor associated with workplace violence.

In our study, about 75% of residents faced violence while they were working in the Primary care clinics related to Ministry of health hospitals. But many studies have found that the emergency department and its doctors would have violent environment.14, 20, 21 In these departments the doctors and health care workers face patients who are critically ill and accompanied by family members who are anxious and stressed. Hence, they are more susceptible to aggression and violence if they feel that the patient was not treated well. Our results shows the patients, companions and Doctor were involved in the violence, where 23.6% of residents had faced violence at the hands of their co-workers, which is a concerning factor for the hospital administration. The reasons could be due to low job satisfaction and unknown factors, where this study could not explored. Evidence suggests that Surgeons, psychiatrists, emergency physicians, anesthesiologists and internists are often victims of violence,26 but our study indicates even Family medicine residents are vulnerable to working place violence.

Work-related violence which was faced by health care workers and doctors usually results in short- and long-term effects on the victims’ physical, psychological state and professional performance27, 28 Adverse consequences of violence in our study was found to be decrease performance work in 27.1% residents and felt ashamed or guilty by 11.4% residents. Working place violence has been associated with reduced productivity, increased turnover, absenteeism, counselling costs, decreased staff morale and poor quality of life.29 Hence, there is a need to introduce policies and measures to stop violence in the health sector. In general working place violence is an under-reported phenomenon.26 In our study too, only 23 out of 72 residents had reported the event of violence to their supervisors. And remaining residents who did not report considered as It is not important, Felt shamed, Felt guilty, Afraid of negative consequences, Did not know who to report, Did not know how to report and useless. This highlights the need to encourage the proper mechanism of reporting of violent incidents among distressed workers and to develop organized mechanisms for speedy measures to avoid such events.

Regarding characteristics of treating doctors who faced workplace violence, our study did not find any associated factors such as gender, age, marital status and level of residency. Patient characteristics who involved in violence were male(72.2%) and of were in age above 20 years (86.1%) but could not find other factors such as intoxication and mental health problems as reported in other studies.30 Other factors which leads to violence, our study found that unmet service demand, misunderstanding and reaction to injury. Besides overcrowding and long waiting time were also the contribution factors towards the workplace violence.

Our study indicates that the workplace violence exists, and its prevention is fundamental. The institutions must provide training for the resident doctors in good working practices which have effective communication and system of reporting violent incidents so as to resolve the conflicts situations. It was found there is nonexistence of policy for reporting, investigating the cause and prosecuting the offender. In most of the residents who had conflicts, their responses to the incident were found inappropriate due to multiple reasons. The reasons of violence due to variables of working place indicates the need for changes in health care settings which include decision-making procedures (such as reducing waiting time & providing proper time bound services) work climate and support among colleagues.

Conclusion

Workplace violence is a common phenomenon and in most of the health care facilities there is no system of reporting and its prevention. Even if there is a system in some of the settings, there is wide spread ignorance among the residents which lead to under reporting. Most of the verbal aggression experienced by our family medicine residents particularly in Ministry of health hospitals were due to poor communication, long waiting period, over-crowding and clinical issues (unmet services) arising from patient care. Providing training during residency rotations in good working practices with effective communication and having system of resolving conflicts could be considered as the way to reduce the likelihood of happening workplace violence. A strong, positive and continuous commitment is required by the residents, their supervisors and management to counter the workplace violence.

Limitations

This study was conducted only among the residents of Family medicine in Jeddah (KSA) region with limited sample size and the results could not be generalized to the other residents. There is a possibility of recall bias as the study used a questionnaire to collect the incidents of workplace violence. As most of the information is self-reported where the data was collected from residents perspective and not verified from the administrative records and also patient’s perceptive was not considered.

Source of Funding

No funding.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to all the residents who had participated in this study.

References

1 

C Kamchuchat V Chongsuvivatwong S Oncheunjit T W Yip R Sangthong Workplace violence directed at nursing staff at a general hospital in southern ThailandJ Occup Health20085022017

2 

World Health Organization. Joint Programme on Workplace Violence in the Health Sector, Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/interpersonal/en/WVmanagementvictimspaper.pdf

3 

P P Elliott Violence in health care. What nurse managers need to knowNurs Manage199728123841

4 

R Hader Workplace Violence Survey 2008: unsettling findings: Employee’s safety isn’t the norm in our healthcare settingsNurs Manage200839713910.1097/01.NUMA.0000326561.54414.58

5 

S Fujita S Ito K Seto T Kitazawa K Matsumoto T Hasegawa Risk factors of workplace violence at hospitals in JapanJ Hospital Med2012727984

6 

W M Algwaiz S A Alghanim Violence exposure among health care professionals in Saudi public hospitals. A preliminary investigationSaudi Med J20123317682

7 

M H Smith-Pittman Y D Mckoy Workplace violence in healthcare environmentsNurs Forum19993435130.1111/j.1744-6198.1999.tb00988.x

8 

S Winstanley R Whittington Aggression towards health care staff in a UK general hospital: variation among professions and departmentsJ Clin Nurs2004131310

9 

S Hahn M Müller I Needham T Dassen G Kok R J Halfens Factors associated with patient and visitor violence experienced by nurses in general hospitals in Switzerland: a cross-sectional surveyJ Clin Nurs20101923-24353546

10 

M Kitaneh M Hamdan Workplace violence against physicians and nurses in Palestinian public hospitals: a cross-sectional studyBMC Health Serv Res201212469

11 

N Magnavita T Heponiemi Violence towards health care workers in a Public Health Care Facility in Italy: a repeated cross-sectional studyBMC Health Serv Res201212108

12 

G Mantzuranis E Fafliora V G Bampalis I Christopoulou Assessment and analysis of workplace violence in a Greek tertiary hospitalArch Environ Occup Health201570525664

13 

M A Abbas L A Fiala A G A Rahman A E Fahim Epidemiology of workplace violence against nursing staff in Ismailia Governorate, EgyptJ Egypt Public Health Assoc2010851-22943

14 

M Albashtawy Workplace violence against nurses in emergency departments in JordanInt Nurs Rev20136045505

15 

M Kitaneh M Hamdan Workplace violence against physicians and nurses in Palestinian public hospitals: a cross-sectional studyBMC Health Serv Res201212469

16 

N Al-Turki A A Afify M Alateeq Violence against health workers in Family Medicine CentersJ Multidiscip Healthc201692576610.2147/JMDH.S105407

17 

A H El-Gilany A El-Wehady M Amr Violence against primary health care workers in Al-Hassa, Saudi ArabiaJ Interpers Violence20102547163410.1177/0886260509334395

18 

N A Al-Shamlan N Jayaseeli M M Al-Shawi A S Al-Joudi Are nurses verbally abused? A cross-sectional study of nurses at a university hospital, Eastern Province, Saudi ArabiaJ Family Community Med201724317380

19 

W M Algwaiz S A Alghanim Violence exposure among health care professionals in Saudi public hospitals. A preliminary investigationSaudi Med J20123317682

20 

A Alyaemni H Alhudaithi Workplace violence against nurses in the emergency Departments of three hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional surveyNurs Plus Open20162354110.1016/j.npls.2016.09.001

21 

T Y Alzahrani A H Almutairi D A Alamri M M Alamri Y S Alalawi Violence and aggression toward health care professionals in emergency departments in Tabuk, Saudi ArabiaEur J Pharm Med Res201631511

22 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Violence. Occupational Hazards in Hospitals2002http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-101/pdfs/2002-101.pdf

23 

S Fujita S Ito K Seto T Kitazawa K Matsumoto T Hasegawa Risk factors of workplace violence at hospitals in JapanJ Hospital Med2012727984

24 

J Ori N S Devi A B Singh K Thongam J Padu R Abhilesh Prevalence and attitude of workplace violence among the post graduate students in a tertiary hospital in ManipurJ Med Soc201428258

25 

C J Newman D H De Vries J Kanakuze G Ngendahimana Workplace violence and gender discrimination in Rwanda’s health workforce: Increasing safety and gender equalityHum Resour Health201191910.1186/1478-4491-9-19

26 

M Arimatsu K Wada T Yoshikawa S Oda H Taniguchi Y Aizawa An epidemiological study of work-related violence experienced by physicians who graduated from a medical school in JapanJ Occup Health20085035761

27 

M Kitaneh N Hamdam Workplace violence against physicians and nurses in Palestinian public hospitals: A cross-sectional studyBMC Health Serv Res201212469

28 

H Erkol M R Gökdoðan Z Erkol B Boz Aggression and violence towards health care providers-a problem in Turkey?J Forensic Leg Med20071442331

29 

S G Gerberich T R Church P M Mcgovern H E Hansen N M Nachreiner M S Geisser An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: The Minnesota Nurses’ StudyOccup Environ Med200461495503

30 

J L Morrison J D Lantos W Levinson Aggression and violence directed towards physiciansJ Gen Intern Med19981355661



jats-html.xsl

© 2020 Published by Innovative Publication Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (creativecommons.org)


  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

View Article

PDF File   Full Text Article


Downlaod

PDF File   XML File   ePub File


Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

Article DOI

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jchm.2020.028


Article Metrics






Article Access statistics

Viewed: 491

PDF Downloaded: 210