Using the attached research paper, drafting a 5-7 minute audio recording script in which you summarize the research. The research is still incomplete, and we fully expect that you will heavily revise
Running Header: VIOLENCE AT WORK
Name
College
2019
Health facilities provide health care, and these range from doctor’s offices to comprehensive hospitals with elaborate emergency departments and trauma centers. Hospitals are essential necessities for both high poverty areas as well as low poverty areas (Baron & Neuman, 1996). High poverty areas may however require non-profit hospitals to ensure health care is affordable in these regions. People expect the best possible care in health facilities considering that their lives may literally depend on the kind of care they receive there. Hospitals have several groups of people including patients, healthcare workers, support staff and medical insurers. Each of these groups play different roles and benefit differently from the facility.
Unfortunately, no workplace is immune to violence and healthcare professionals face a greater risk of verbal, psychological or emotional abuse. Violence against healthcare providers may occur in emergency rooms, surgical theatres and even in nursing homes. Nurses face the highest rate of workplace violence in hospitals due to the nature of their duties and the societal perception of nursing as a lower-class role in hospitals (Baron & Neuman, 1996). A majority of cases involving violence go unreported since no action is necessarily taken. Also because the nurses have come to believe that such instances are a part and parcel of the jobs. The violence and abuse is not only from hospital patients but also from coworkers (Warr, 2011). Often bullying of nurses by colleagues occurs in ways such as insulting comments, exclusion, intimidation or backstabbing. Bullying gradually affects the nurse’s personal standing, reducing their professional status and are often overwork to try to curb their emotional distress.
In Pakistani society, the nursing profession is adequately respected which is a big cause of workplace violence towards nurses (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Not all cases of workplace violence are reported by these nurses due to fear of greater disrespect from the society after reports are made. The aggression has continued to occur in many of the Pakistan hospitals due to drunken people using an abusive language to the hospital employees (Ahmed, Khizar Memon & Memon, 2018). Nurses deal with cases such as verbal abuse from patients or their family members, sexual harassment, workplace bullying and even physical violence ranging from patients to other paramedical staff. Nurses are not the only healthcare workers abused in hospitals, physicians and health providers face workplace violence (Baig et al., 2018).
Patients walking into or carried into hospitals by their family members have a predetermined prejudice against nursing profession. This leads to their mistrust in nurses handling their family members, families have been known to be verbally abusive, yelling orders, questioning their competence and sometimes demanding to send in an actual medic to attend to the patient (Warr, 2011). Workplace violence is an ever-rising problem of psychiatric patients in many hospitals for the past 20 years (d'Ettorre & Pellicani, 2017). Since these nurses do not receive support even after launching formal complaints or reporting these incidents, it demoralizes them, causing few people choose to remain practicing in this profession. Little effort is put into discouraging workplace violence in Pakistani.
It is commonly seen that greatest amount of physically and verbally abusive patients are often males and the abused nurses are female. This proves that the level of bias against females is dominated by male patients. Female workers also have to deal with sexual harassment from their employers, thus they are in constant fear of sexual assault. Most industrialized countries have been educated and understand that nurses and doctors are equally important and are accorded more respect than in developing countries (Warr, 2011).
Many wealthy patients think that they deserve better or special treatment because of their deep pockets. Anything short of their expectation may prompt them to be abusive, often verbally with nurses or physicians on the receiving end. Special attention accorded the wealthy results in deteriorating and sometimes fatal cases of the less wealthy in the Pakistani society (Warr, 2011). This demotivates the hospital personnel in knowing that some people who are regarded as the upper class in society are placed above the hospital’s mission especially when it costs the middle- or lower-class people’s lives.
Nurses and assistant nurses are the most common recipients of workplace violence, yet they undertake the most essential and demanding duties in the hospital (Warr, 2011). These include changing beddings, washing patient’s wounds, cleaning up after patients with urine incontinence along with a multitude of other tasks. Their duties may be a contributing factor to the violence towards them since most people regard these duties as lowly unlike doctors, nurses are assumed to have very few medical skills or knowledge. Nurses, by far, spend the largest amount of time interacting with patients which makes them the most susceptible to violence. Health personnel such as nurses, physicians, patients, and supporting staff have to undergo various education to avoid violation of hospitals’ employees' rights (Hinsenkamp, 2013).
Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication. It describes the effect of a society’s culture on an individual’s behavior. Hofstede developed his model as a result of using factor analysis to examine the results of a worldwide survey of employee values (Baron & Neuman, 1996). This theory can be applied to the process of eliminating violence in the work place by encouraging the stakeholders to culturally solve any issue that arises among them. In the United States, this theory has been put into practice during situations of negotiations or coming into agreement where upon agreeing or solving an issue, the parties involved shake hands as a sign of agreement.
In-group favoritism which in some instances may be referred to as in-group out-group bias involves the favoring of members of one in-group over another. This can be expressed during the allocation of resources, the evaluation of one’s performance or even in the process of job promotions. Basically, in-group favoritism involves putting the needs of some people over the needs of others and these people may share a common background such as being related. In-group favoritism emerges in most instances of unethical work place behavior and healthcare facilities are not excluded (Warr, 2011).
This behavior often occurs against different groups of people at the hospital including the nurses, patients or the support staff (Warr, 2011). In the case of patients, this happens when a patient who is of a similar cultural background as that of the hospitals officials is given the first priority before all the other patients. The hospital staff also undergoes this traumatic experience by being victims of seclusion in their workplaces or being subjected to much more labor compared to any other member in their category. Research has shown that in-group favoritism often occurs as a result of the formation of cultural groups.
Research carried out indicated that there are two prominent theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of in-group favoritism which include the realistic conflict theory and social identity theory. Realistic conflict theory proposes that intergroup conflict or competition arises when the two groups have opposing claims to scarce resources. In contrast, the social identity theory posits a psychological drive for positively distinct social identities as the general root cause for in-group favoritism (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Going into a deeper understanding, the realistic conflict theory explains how the intergroup difference can arise from various conflicting variables which may include conflicting goals and competition to limited resources.
Historical trends in the healthcare system are the cause of workplace violence to many healthcare staffs. The medical system has policies that are more bias to some people regardless of the same job position performed (Gillespie, Gates, Miller & Howard, 2010). Initially, black Americans and other races in the United States faces many form discrimination in the workplaces as compared to fellow white Americans. White Americans patients received better treatment services in the health facilities than any race. It cultivated hatred and racial discrimination of other people, as people lost faith in the healthcare institutions. Employment sector in the health facilities availed more job opportunities to the white American race regardless of possessing the qualities with other races. Some of the races employees had more skills and work experience than the favored white American population. Many black American lived in poor condition due to lack of employment. Gender discrimination is also a common issue in the United States. The healthcare institutions preferred men handling services in a healthcare facility despite having similar job quality with female employees. It led to female employees regretting their sexual status for not qualifying for some job opportunities in hospitals. Medical institutions have to avoid any form of workplace violence based on any form of discrimination to all healthcare employees and patients.
Observing this theory in a practical manner, taking into consideration the setting of a healthcare facility, it can be explained in a literal view that intergroup conflicts may occur if one group has conflicting goals, which in essence means for that group to achieve their goals, it will affect the other group but in a negative way (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Thus, the source of conflict arises amongst them. This would also apply in instances where the two groups are competing towards achieving scarce resources. In the process of competition, a negative interlink always arises between the two groups.
On the other hand, there is the social identity theory. This theory in contrast to the realistic conflict theory can be described as a theory that predicts certain intergroup behavior on the basis of perceived group status differences, the perceived legitimacy of these differences and the perceived ability to move from one group to another (Baron & Neuman, 1996). In essence, social identity theory states that the cause of in-group favoritism originates from the self-concept of an individual perceived from a given group where the individual is at. As opposed to the realistic conflict theory where the difference emerges from the group as whole, this theory postulates an individual’s behavior as the root cause of intergroup conflicts.
In order to deal with this conduct, there first has to be a step by step process towards solving this issue. This is the decision making process. The process requires justifying the case of unethical conduct (Warr, 2011). Through this, the misjudgment mistake is evaded by ensuring that there really was misconduct. This entails taking all the measures required to come up with evidence that is substantial enough to hold the accused guilty. After coming up with enough evidence to prove the presence of misconduct, the next step is to follow the organization’s procedure.
Any organization has a set of rules to deal with the ethical issues. The same is the case with healthcare facilities that have a set of rules on what to do in the event of misconduct (Warr, 2011). This encompasses a sit in by the board of directors to decide on actions to be taken on the accused. Upon arrival on the action that first has to be approved by all the members, the next step is to implement the action or actions. This includes the summoning of the accused into a panel of the organizations’ jury. In hospitals there is a special panel that deals with these infractions. However, sometimes the issue may go beyond the panel. This is the case when the misconduct is also illegal, or it opposes the laws of the state. In these instances, it is advisable to have a legal representation (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Alternatively, another action plan that has been employed is when a situation seems to be worsening and no action is being taken, research has found that finding job in another location or organization may be the best solution.
The above process and actions taken have in them different social responsibility elements. One of them includes promoting responsible behavior. Taking action on a given misconduct before the public helps to promote responsible behavior among the members of the community at large (Baron & Neuman, 1996). This is because, the members of the community will tend to act accordingly first in order to evade the charges that will be imposed to them in case of an issue. Secondly, the society at large aims at having a crime free environment and through the process of taking actions on the wrong doers, there result is a sense of responsibility among the rest of the community.
Another social responsibility reflected on the above discussion includes the promotion of a favorable working environment. All healthcare centers should try to predict trivialization of violence in the workplaces to avoid future violation of health workers’ rights (Lenaghan, Cirrincione & Henrich, 2018). Upon dealing with such misconducts, the public benefits by getting a very encouraging and favorable environment for the public (Baron & Neuman, 1996). In the long run this leads to the increased productiveness of the community as a whole, hence development of the society.
CNN states that every year, about 700 people all around the world are murdered in job related incidences. However, the cases of workplace violence that are nonfatal seem to be increasingly high. In 2009 alone, there were 572,000 cases of nonfatal crimes reported. In the healthcare system, it is reported that up to 15,000 cases of violence are reported every year (Baron & Neuman, 1996).
Researchers have tried to come up with many possible policies and practices in order to deal with this situation. These possible solutions include;
Creating a policy that prevents harassment.
When creating this, be sure to include all the stakeholders of the organization starting from the executive board down to the support staff. Make sure that this policy is widely spread all over the organization. This will promote awareness yet assuring the stakeholders that they are in safe hands (Warr, 2011).
Create an effective line of communication
Encouraging the team members to use open communication is quite successful since effective communication eliminates the presence of any conduct that is not suitable. Hold meetings for the team and encourage team building to defuse any ill motives (Warr, 2011).
Establish a zero-tolerance policy
This helps to show that the organization is quite aware of its employees and that it cares about their rights (Warr, 2011).
Encourage the employees to accept individual difference
This encourages team members to understand each other and be able to tolerate and appreciate themselves. Activities done together help them to learn the abilities and strengths of each member (Warr, 2011).
Prevent petty conflicts from turning into violence
This can be done effectively by monitoring activities and how the team work together. This works because they will be able to detect minimal changes in behavior and help curb something that could have turned violent (Warr, 2011).
Encourage every member of the organization to report any form of violence
This will strengthen the bond of the employee and the organization while also assuring them that they are safe within the organization. Thus, leading to comfort and in turn a conducive working environment (Warr, 2011). Employers have to promote the safety of workers in a medical institution to avoid mental suffering of employees. However, health personnel with the traumatic experience of violence should attend respective rehabilitation centers to heal both emotionally, physically, and mentally (Liu et al., 2019).
References
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 22(3), 161-173.
Warr, P. (2011). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Psychology Press.
Ahmed, F., Khizar Memon, M., & Memon, S. (2018). Violence against doctors, a serious concern for healthcare organizations to ponder about. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 25, 3-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2017.11.003
Baig, L., Tanzil, S., Shaikh, S., Hashmi, I., Khan, M., & Polkowski, M. (2018). Effectiveness of training on de-escalation of violence and management of aggressive behavior faced by health care providers in a public sector hospital of Karachi. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 34(2). doi: 10.12669/pjms.342.14432
d'Ettorre, G., & Pellicani, V. (2017). Workplace Violence Toward Mental Healthcare Workers Employed in Psychiatric Wards. Safety and Health at Work, 8(4), 337-342. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.01.004
Gillespie, G., Gates, D., Miller, M., & Howard, P. (2010). Violence Against Healthcare Workers in a Pediatric Emergency Department. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 32(1), 68-82. doi: 10.1097/tme.0b013e3181c8b0b4
Hinsenkamp, M. (2013). Violence against healthcare workers. International Orthopaedics, 37(12), 2321-2322. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2129-5
Lenaghan, P., Cirrincione, N., & Henrich, S. (2018). Preventing Emergency Department Violence through Design. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 44(1), 7-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2017.06.012
Liu, J., Zheng, J., Liu, K., Liu, X., Wu, Y., Wang, J., & You, L. (2019). Workplace violence against Nurses, job Satisfaction, burnout, and patient safety in Chinese hospitals. Nursing Outlook. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2019.04.006
Ramacciati, N., Ceccagnoli, A., Addey, B., & Rasero, L. (2018). Violence towards Emergency Nurses. The Italian National Survey 2016: A qualitative study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 81, 21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.01.017
