Attitudes Toward the Use of a Metal Detector in an Urban Emergency Department☆,☆☆,★
Section snippets
INTRODUCTION
Urban EDs treat a substantial number of assault-, firearm-, and gang-related injuries. As a result, the risk of violent behavior on the part of patients and their friends, family members, and enemies, who might bring concealed weapons into the ED, is increased. In fact, surveys have demonstrated that violent or potentially violent events are relatively common in the ED. For instance, 20% of EDs report at least one threat with a weapon each month.1 The threat of violence is therefore a
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted our study in the ED of Vanderbilt University Hospital, an urban university hospital located in Nashville, TN. The hospital is the only Level I trauma center serving a metropolitan area of approximately 1 million people. Patients not brought by ambulance, along with their family and friends, must pass through a metal detector to enter the triage area and waiting room. The metal detector is staffed 24 hours a day by a university security guard. The initial equipment and setup charges
RESULTS
We interviewed 176 patrons (62 patients, 114 family members or friends) and 95 ED employees (35 nurses, 30 physicians, 16 security officers, and 14 staff members). Among the patrons, 50% were women and 40% were black. Their mean age was 40.3 years (range, 18 to 82 years), and 45 (26%) were interviewed between the hours of midnight and 8 am.
Eighty percent of patrons and 85% of employees said they liked the metal detector. Ninety percent of patrons and 73% of employees said they felt safer with
DISCUSSION
Although reported threats with weapons in our ED were few before the installation of the metal detector, this phenomenon has been a problem in other hospitals. In a survey of 127 US teaching hospital EDs, 20% reported at least one threat with a weapon each month, and 46% reported the confiscation of a weapon at least once a month.1 In another study of the prevalence of weapons possession by ED patients, 500 patients suspected of carrying weapons were searched over a 20-month period; 89 (18%)
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the efforts of Paul Biddinger, Randall Grubbs, and Daniel Penn in data collection.
References (5)
- et al.
Emergency department violence in US teaching hospitals
Ann Emerg Med
(1988) - et al.
Residents’ perspectives on violence and personal safety in the emergency department
Ann Emerg Med
(1994)
Cited by (19)
Risk factors for workplace encounters with weapons by hospital employees
2021, Public Health in PracticeCitation Excerpt :This may result in resistance to their deployment and use by hospital administrators [9]. However, several studies have found that patients, visitors, and staff all support the use of metal detectors and in-fact, the use of metal detectors has often been viewed as an enhanced and desirable customer service feature by the majority of those surveyed [9–11]. Policies and decisions made regarding screening for weapons and the subsequent disposition of those weapons discovered in a healthcare facility requires significant deliberation and an attempt to account for the multiple complex factors that affect the potential risks.
Weapons Retrieved after the Implementation of Emergency Department Metal Detection
2015, Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :Data, however, suggest that the public is amenable to the presence of metal detectors. Several studies have explored attitudes toward metal detectors and found that patients, families, and hospital staff have generally positive perceptions of the use of metal detection in the ED, citing increased feelings of safety and security as positive effects (7–10). Despite this, less than half of surveyed physicians in 2011 reported working at an ED with metal detectors (6).
The extent, nature, and precipitating factors of nurse assault among three groups of registered nurses in a regional medical center
2002, Journal of Emergency NursingCitation Excerpt :Thirty-six percent of nurses reported ineffective restricted access to patient care areas, which can result in nurses feeling vulnerable and powerless to control traffic and provide patient privacy. The use of metal detectors in medical facilities has shown that there has been little resistance from the public regarding the use of these devices, and significant numbers of weapons have been removed from persons upon entry through emergency departments.17-20 A larger sample from more than one institution and with more ethnic and gender diversity is needed to provide a more accurate picture of the incidence and nature of assault and abuse by patients and family members and visitors.
Violence in A&E departments: A systematic review of the literature
2001, Accident and Emergency NursingEmergency medical services providers and weapons in the prehospital setting
2000, Prehospital Emergency CareEffect of a security system on violent incidents and hidden weapons in the emergency department
1999, Annals of Emergency Medicine
- ☆
From the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
- ☆☆
Reprint no.47/1/80645
- ★
Address for reprints: Seth Wright, MD Department of Emergency Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center 703 Oxford House Nashville, TN 37232-4700