The American journal of emergency medicine · 2024
One year of passive weapons detection and deterrence at an academic emergency department: A mixed-methods study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McGuire Sarayna S, Gazley Bou F, Mullan Aidan F, Clements Casey M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Acts of violence occurring in the healthcare setting that involve weapons result in significant morbidity and mortality. New passive weapons screening technology (PWST) offers a potential protective measure. Our objective was to quantify the volume of weapons detected and deterred from our emergency department (ED) over a 12-month period and determine whether it led to weapon-carrier hostility towards frontline staff.
METHODS: Mixed-methods study involving a descriptive analysis of weapons detection data and a survey study of security staff regarding weapon-carrier hostility at point of deterrence within the ED of a large, academic, Level 1 trauma center in a Midwest city with an average annual volume of 80,000 patients. The study was deemed exempt by the IRB.
RESULTS: Between 11/1/22 and 10/31/23, 1741 weapons were detected, including knives (n = 1390; 79.8 %), firearms (n = 69; 4.0 %), and other/improvised weapons (n = 282; 16.2 %). Prior to implementation of PWST, average monthly weapons detection was ≤1. Security staff responded to the survey question in 534/1741 (30.7 %) interactions where a weapon was detected. The majority indicated the weapon-carrier was not upset with prevention of weapon(s) from entering (n = 470; 88.0 %).
CONCLUSION: We found a concerning rate of attempts to bring weapons into our ED. This does not include weapons which may be entering the ED undetected via patients transported by emergency medical services (EMS) or on persons entering through other hospital entrances. Security perception was that most weapon-carriers were not upset with this intervention.
METHODS: Mixed-methods study involving a descriptive analysis of weapons detection data and a survey study of security staff regarding weapon-carrier hostility at point of deterrence within the ED of a large, academic, Level 1 trauma center in a Midwest city with an average annual volume of 80,000 patients. The study was deemed exempt by the IRB.
RESULTS: Between 11/1/22 and 10/31/23, 1741 weapons were detected, including knives (n = 1390; 79.8 %), firearms (n = 69; 4.0 %), and other/improvised weapons (n = 282; 16.2 %). Prior to implementation of PWST, average monthly weapons detection was ≤1. Security staff responded to the survey question in 534/1741 (30.7 %) interactions where a weapon was detected. The majority indicated the weapon-carrier was not upset with prevention of weapon(s) from entering (n = 470; 88.0 %).
CONCLUSION: We found a concerning rate of attempts to bring weapons into our ED. This does not include weapons which may be entering the ED undetected via patients transported by emergency medical services (EMS) or on persons entering through other hospital entrances. Security perception was that most weapon-carriers were not upset with this intervention.