The document discusses reducing workplace violence through the use of de-escalation techniques and aggression risk assessment tools. It conducted a literature review of research evaluating aggression risk assessment tools in emergency departments and their ability to reduce future violence against healthcare workers. The review found that various tools have been used in emergency departments, psychiatric, and medical-surgical settings to assess violence risk, including the STAMP framework, Brøset Violence Checklist, and M55 Violence Risk Assessment Tool. The goal of identifying and implementing effective assessment tools is to emphasize risk management and reduce violent behaviors in healthcare facilities.

1. Use Of De-Escalation Techniques Reduce Workplace Violence
Use Of De-Escalation Techniques Reduce Workplace ViolenceUse Of De-Escalation
Techniques Reduce Workplace ViolenceResearch: Literature Synthesis: Patient Aggression
Risk Assessment Tools in the Emergency DepartmentNon-research: Ensuring Workplace
Safety: Evidence Supporting Interventions for Nurse Administrators. Only use template
provided (APA format)not including cover page, 4-5pgs Must include.Recommended
Practice Change· Be sure you include your recommendation for your practice change, using
your EBP question (remove the comparison)· Next, State how the research article supports
this practice change recommendation, then include the in-text citation at the end of the
statementExample: The research article demonstrated use of Pilates increased strength,
balance, and reduced falls among participants (Smith, 2020).· Finally, state how the non-
research articles supports this practice change recommendation, then include the in-text
citation at the end of the statement· All of these elements must be included for this section
to pass5. Key Stakeholders· State 3 stakeholders (by their position- wound nurse, nurse
educator, nurse administrator, etc) and state their role in helping get the practice change
started. They each need a different role (job)ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-
FREE PAPERSbased risk management should be emphasized to assess and reduce violent
behavior, but there appears to be a noticeable lack of assessment tools and interventions
available.2 In addition, few programs are based on a systematic evaluation of outcomes, and
there is little information available to support health care providers in choosing one
program over another.3The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to
evaluate the use of aggression risk assessment tools regarding workplace violence (WPV) in
the emergency department and the reduction of the future risk of violence toward ED
health care staff. The research question addressed in this systematic review was as follows:
Does the use of an aggression risk assessment tool reduce the future risk of violence toward
the health care worker? The focus was on reduction of potential violence toward staff in the
ED setting. Use Of De-Escalation Techniques Reduce Workplace ViolenceMethodsEvaluation
of the evidence was completed using a 7-step systematic review method.4 The 7 steps are
formulating a research question, developing a research protocol, com- mencing a literature
search, performing data extraction, conducting a quality appraisal, performing data analysis
and reviewing the results of the included studies, and interpret- ing the results.4The initial
search inquiry used 3 electronic databases: CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and
Allied Health Literature) Plus with Full Text, Medline, and PsycINFO. Limitations were set to
include only research conducted in the period from January 2009 through September 2014,

2. English-language studies, and research published in peer- reviewed journals. In an effort to
gain the greatest depth of knowledge, the following search terms were used in multiple
combinations: WPV, violence, patient aggression, patient assault, aggression risk
assessment tool, violence risk assessment tool, predicting violent behavior, nursing, and
emergency department. The initial search using the combination of search terms yielded
589 research journalWWW.JENONLINE.ORG 19 CLINICAL/Calow et alarticles. Internet
searches of government Web sites and professional organizations were also conducted,
producing position statements, toolkits, and discussion papers regarding WPV in the
emergency department. In addition, references of articles were scanned to identify
additional relevant articles. A preliminary review of the literature for inclusion was
conducted by reviewing the title of the article for relevancy (N = 589). A further review of
the literature for inclusion was conducted by reviewing the abstract of the article (N = 56).
Our final review of the literature for inclusion was conducted by a full review of the article
(N = 13).INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIAArticles included in the synthesis of the
literature were original research studies of any research design, written in the English
language, published between the years 2009 and 2014, and published in peer-reviewed
journals. Articles were also chosen based on answering the research question specifically
addressing WPV in the ED setting and use of an aggression risk assessment tool. Because of
the limited amount of research in the literature specific to violence risk assessment tools in
the emergency department, the search was expanded to include violence risk assessment
tools in the inpatient setting, including psychiatric and medical-surgical units.Because the
nature of this synthesis of the literature was to apply findings specifically to clinical practice
in the ED and inpatient setting, research conducted in outpatient and extended-care
facilities was excluded. Although multiple articles were available related to WPV in the ED
setting, articles were excluded if they did not discuss the specific use of a tool to assess the
risk of violent behavior from a patient toward a health care worker.An exception to the
inclusion criteria was the use of articles published in 2007 specific to the Staring, Tone and
volume of voice, Anxiety, Mumbling, and Pacing (STAMP) violence risk assessment
framework.5 Several studies following the 2007 publication of research related to the
STAMP violence risk assessment framework have cited STAMP as foundational work
regarding violence risk assessment specific to the emergency department. Use Of De-
Escalation Techniques Reduce Workplace ViolenceLITERATURE SYNTHESISThe literature
showed that violence risk assessment tools have been implemented in various health care
settings (Appendix Table). In total, the use of 9 different violence risk assessment tools
emerged from the literature across the various settings, 3 in emergency departments, 4 in
psychiatric settings, and 2 in medical-surgical inpatient units. Although one specific violence
risk assessment tool20 JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY NURSINGwas not consistently
implemented across the literature, variations of the STAMP violence assessment framework
emerged in 3 articles specific to the emergency depart- ment,5–7 variations of the Brøset
Violence Checklist (BVC) emerged in 2 articles specific to psychiatric units,8,9 and a
variation of the M55 Violence Risk Assessment Tool emerged in 2 studies in medical-
surgical areas.10,11ED SETTINGThree violence risk assessment tools implemented in the
ED setting emerged from the literature: (1) STAMP violence assessment framework5–7; (2)

3. Assessment, Behavioral indicators, and Conversation (ABC) of violence risk assessment at
triage12; and (3) five attributes of caring to avert violence (being safe, being available, being
respectful, being supportive, and being responsive).13