Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) establish the prevalence of safety threats and workplace violence (WPV) experienced by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in a low/middle-income country with a new prehospital care system, India and (2) understand which EMTs are at particularly high risk for these experiences.
Setting
EMTs from four Indian states (Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana) were eligible to participate during the study period from July through November 2017.
Methods
Cross-sectional survey study.
Participants
386 practicing EMTs from four Indian states.
Results
The overall prevalence of any WPV was 67.9% (95% CI 63.0% to 72.5%). The prevalence of physical assault was 58% (95% CI 52.5% to 63.4%) and verbal assault was 59.8% (95% CI 54.5% to 65%). Of physical assault victims, 21.7% were injured and 30.2% sought medical attention after the incident. Further, 57.3% (n=216) of respondents reported they were ‘somewhat worried’ and 28.4% (n=107) reported they were ‘very worried’ about their safety at work.
Conclusion
WPV and safety fears were found to be common among EMTs in India. Focused initiatives to counter WPV in countries developing prehospital care systems are necessary to build a healthy and sustainable prehospital healthcare workforce.
Keywords: public health, accident & emergency medicine, international health services
Strengths and limitations of this study.
This is the first study to establish the prevalence of workplace violence in the largest prehospital organisation in India.
There was a high response rate (~95%) among participants.
Capturing the true prevalence of violence may be difficult given cultural norms on how violence is defined.
Despite the participants originating from multiple states and a variety of demographic backgrounds, any convenience sample is prone to selection bias which may affect generalisability of study results.
Survey responses were subject to recall bias.
Background
There is a growing global focus on the development and retention of a healthy and sustainable healthcare workforce in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Previous studies in the USA, Australia and LMICs report that 60.0%–87.5% of emergency healthcare providers (eg, nurses and physicians) experience some form of workplace violence (WPV) annually.1–8 WPV includes both physical and verbal assault from different perpetrators, including bystanders, patients, patients’ families and colleagues.9–11 Most providers report verbal assault, though the exact prevalence is still unknown. Prior studies also report a very wide range (15%–65%) of physical assault in the workplace.1 7 While the exact prevalence of physical assault is unclear, many postulate it is underreported.9
The WHO identified global healthcare providers as particularly vulnerable to WPV, which can substantially affect the welfare and retention of this vital workforce.12 Prior investigations have examined WPV among emergency department and hospital workers in LMICs, but few studies have been conducted on prehospital care providers such as emergency medical technicians (EMTs).4 13–15 Importantly, violence at the workplace can lead to injuries requiring medical attention and/or leave from work with one study suggesting that 25% of WPV cases lead to injury and 37% require medical care.4 16 17 EMTs are at high risk for significant physical and psychological strain that can lead to attrition from burnout and job dissatisfaction.17 Ultimately, attrition can lead to increased organisational costs and operational strain among a burgeoning workforce of emergency medical service (EMS) providers in LMICs.
To date, there have been no WPV investigations among the ~20 000 EMTs employed by the public sector in India. However, violence towards India’s physicians has been recognised as a common threat. As a result, India has enacted special legislation that includes both prison time and fines for offenders, to protect its physicians.18–20 Protections afforded by this legislation do not extend to EMTs. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of safety and WPV experiences by EMTs in India who work in an often unregulated, unpredictable and dynamic environment. EMTs also commonly treat patients with varying degrees of psychological impairment and substance abuse who may be prone to violent behaviour.9 21 This compounds their safety risks and increases the likelihood of verbal or physical violence.
The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) establish the prevalence of safety threats and WPV experienced by EMTs in an LMIC with a new prehospital care system, India and (2) understand which EMTs are at particularly high risk for these experiences. This knowledge will inform future educational and system interventions across the globe to improve EMT safety and strengthen prehospital care workforce development.
Materials and methods
Study design, setting and population
This study employed a cross-sectional survey, which was conducted concurrently with EMT educational sessions in India. EMTs from four Indian states (Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Telangana) were eligible to participate during the study period from July 2017 through November 2017.
Survey development and data collection
The study survey was adapted from a previous validated instrument that was created by the Joint Programme on Workplace Violence in the Healthcare Sector (ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI) for use in LMIC healthcare settings.11 The study survey was divided into three main sections. The first section addressed general safety concerns unique to prehospital providers; the second section focused on physical assault; and, the third section focused on verbal assault. The survey and consent were translated and back translated into the four local Indian languages spoken by participants. Participants were given paper copies of the survey at completion of their continuing education sessions at the state EMS headquarters. Written consent was obtained from each participant. Participation in the study was voluntary, without financial compensation and anonymous. Answers were confidential. Survey completion was proctored by research assistants not affiliated with the employer organisation, and participants were notified that their study participation and survey responses would not affect their standing in the organisation.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome for the study was the prevalence of violence experienced in the prior 12 months. Secondary questions of interest included the type of violence experienced (physical or verbal) and characteristics associated with risks to violence. For physical and verbal assault, EMTs were instructed to skip a series of questions if they answered ‘no’ to experiencing assault in the prior 12 months. However, several EMTs who initially answered no to experiencing assault went on to answer subsequent specific questions regarding assault, suggesting that they actually experienced assault. As a result, these individuals were included in the ‘combined’ data and overall prevalence of assault.
Patient and public involvement
Patients and the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination of our research.
Data analysis
The prior reported prevalence of WPV ranges widely from 60% to 87.5%.7–12 18 22
We chose a conservative estimate of 60% prevalence to calculate our sample size. Our goal was to estimate the experience within ±5% of the true prevalence. Using the binomial exact function, we estimated our needed sample size to be ~369 EMTs.23 We used descriptive statistics to examine the distribution of primary and secondary outcomes, and other variables around 95% CIs. The χ2 test and Fisher’s exact test were used for comparing grouped data, as appropriate. Single variate logistic regression was used to examine measures of association between assault subtype, and age, state of employment, length of employment, education and social status. Analyses were run using STATA V.14/SE for Windows.
Results
A total of 386 EMTs completed the survey with a 95% response rate of those approached for survey participation. The demographic data for the entire study population are reported in table 1. The majority of respondents were male (83.9%, n=324) and aged 25–34 years. Overall, 80.2% (n=288) were from Backwards Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste, which are all recognised by the Government of India as disadvantaged social communities. There was equal representation between EMTs practicing in urban and rural settings.
Table 1.
Demographics and sample characteristics
| Characteristics | N (%) Entire sample |
| N | 386 |
| Age, years | |
| 20–24 | 62 (16.1) |
| 25–29 | 134 (34.7) |
| 30–34 | 157 (40.7) |
| ≥35 | 25 (6.5) |
| Missing | 8 (2.1) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 324 (83.9) |
| Female | 51 (13.2) |
| Missing | 11 (2.9) |
| Workplace state | |
| Gujarat | 86 (22.3) |
| Karnataka | 118 (30.6) |
| Tamil Nadu | 65 (16.8) |
| Telangana | 117 (30.3) |
| Length of employment | |
| <1 year | 31 (8.0) |
| 1–2 years | 48 (12.4) |
| 3–4 years | 75 (19.4) |
| 5–7 years | 122 (31.6) |
| ≥8 years | 108 (28.0) |
| Missing | 2 (0.5) |
| Highest education | |
| Below university degree | 133 (34.5) |
| University degree | 177 (45.9) |
| Postgraduate degree | 69 (17.9) |
| Missing | 7 (1.8) |
| Work environment | |
| Urban | 187 (48.4) |
| Rural | 189 (59.0) |
| Missing | 10 (2.6) |
Prevalence of WPV
The overall prevalence of WPV was 67.9% (95% CI 63.0% to 72.5%). When comparing the combined and non-combined prevalence of physical assault, we found that the prevalence of physical assault ranged from 18.5% (95% CI 14.3 to 23.4) in the non-combined population to 58.0% (95% CI 52.5 to 63.4) in the combined population. Table 2 provides the demographics for all physical assault victims. When examining verbal assault cases, we found that the prevalence of verbal assault ranged from 41.6% (95% CI 36.3 to 47.0) in the non-combined group to 59.8% (95% CI 54.5 to 64.9) in the combined group. Table 3 provides the demographics for all verbal assault victims.
Table 2.
Physical assault victim demographics
| Characteristics | N (%) Non-combined physical assault |
P value | N (%) Combined physical assault* |
P value | ||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||
| N | 56 (14.5) | 246 (63.7) | 192 (59.7) | 139 (36.0) | ||
| Age, years | ||||||
| 20–24 | 13 (23.2) | 37 (15.0) | 34 (17.7) | 21 (15.1) | ||
| 25–29 | 29 (51.8) | 75 (30.5) | 78 (40.6) | 38 (27.3) | ||
| 30–34 | 10 (17.9) | 111 (45.1) | 61 (31.8) | 69 (49.6) | ||
| ≥35 | 3 (5.4) | 19 (7.7) | 14 (7.3) | 9 (6.5) | ||
| Missing | 1 (1.8) | 4 (1.6) | 0.006 | 5 (2.6) | 2 (1.4) | 0.077 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 49 (87.5) | 207 (84.2) | 162 (84.4) | 116 (83.5) | ||
| Female | 6 (10.7) | 34 (13.8) | 26 (13.5) | 20 (14.4) | ||
| Missing | 1 (1.8) | 5 (2.0) | 0.453 | 4 (2.1) | 3 (2.2) | 0.322 |
| Workplace state | ||||||
| Gujarat | 18 (32.1) | 31 (12.6) | 56 (29.2) | 10 (7.2) | ||
| Karnataka | 20 (35.7) | 75 (30.5) | 60 (31.3) | 44 (31.7) | ||
| Tamil Nadu | 7 (12.5) | 55 (22.4) | 36 (18.8) | 27 (19.4) | ||
| Telangana | 11 (19.6) | 85 (34.6) | <0.001 | 40 (20.8) | 58 (41.7) | <0.001 |
| Length of employment | ||||||
| <1 year | 4 (7.1) | 24 (9.8) | 19 (9.9) | 12 (8.6) | ||
| 1–2 years | 8 (14.3) | 34 (13.8) | 22 (11.5) | 22 (15.8) | ||
| 3–4 years | 17 (30.4) | 36 (14.6) | 41 (21.4) | 21 (15.1) | ||
| 5–7 years | 18 (32.1) | 72 (29.3) | 63 (32.8) | 38 (27.3) | ||
| ≥8 years | 9 (16.1) | 78 (31.7) | 46 (24.0) | 45 (32.4) | ||
| Missing | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.8) | 0.022 | 1 (0.5) | 1 (0.7) | 0.156 |
| Highest education | ||||||
| Below university degree | 29 (51.8) | 61 (24.8) | 85 (44.3) | 24 (17.3) | ||
| University degree | 16 (28.6) | 132 (53.7) | 77 (40.1) | 79 (56.8) | ||
| Postgraduate degree | 10 (17.9) | 49 (19.9) | 27 (14.1) | 33 (23.7) | ||
| Missing | 1 (1.8) | 4 (1.6) | <0.001 | 3 (1.6) | 3 (2.2) | <0.001 |
| Work environment | ||||||
| Urban | 23 (41.1) | 129 (52.4) | 85 (44.3) | 79 (56.8) | ||
| Rural | 31 (55.4) | 112 (45.5) | 101 (52.6) | 58 (41.7) | ||
| Missing | 2 (3.6) | 5 (2.0) | 0.244 | 6 (3.1) | 2 (1.4) | 0.124 |
*Combined physical assault includes EMTs who answered ‘no’ to an initial question about assault but answered subsequent, more specific questions about details of assault experiences.
EMTs, emergency medical technicians.
Table 3.
Verbal assault victim demographics
| Characteristics | N (%) Non-combined victims of verbal assault |
P value | N (%) Combined verbal assault |
P value | ||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||
| N | 143 (37.0) | 201 (52.1) | 211 (54.7) | 142 (36.8) | ||
| Age, years | ||||||
| 20–24 | 22 (15.4) | 33 (16.4) | 32 (15.2) | 23 (16.2) | ||
| 25–29 | 64 (44.8) | 58 (28.9) | 83 (39.3) | 40 (28.2) | ||
| 30–34 | 55 (38.5) | 90 (44.8) | 82 (38.9) | 66 (46.5) | ||
| ≥35 | 1 (0.7) | 16 (8.0) | 8 (3.8) | 12 (8.5) | ||
| Missing | 1 (0.7) | 4 (2.0) | <0.001 | 6 (2.8) | 1 (0.7) | 0.033 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 116 (81.1) | 173 (86.1) | 175 (82.9) | 120 (84.5) | ||
| Female | 25 (17.5) | 22 (10.9) | 31 (14.7) | 18 (12.7) | ||
| Missing | 2 (1.4) | 6 (3.0) | 0.126 | 5 (2.4) | 4 (2.8) | 0.475 |
| Workplace state | ||||||
| Gujarat | 31 (21.7) | 36 (17.9) | 44 (20.9) | 24 (16.9) | ||
| Karnataka | 28 (19.6) | 80 (39.8) | 54 (25.6) | 57 (40.1) | ||
| Tamil Nadu | 32 (22.4) | 31 (15.4) | 41 (19.4) | 23 (16.2) | ||
| Telangana | 52 (36.4) | 54 (26.9) | <0.001 | 72 (34.1) | 38 (26.8) | <0.001 |
| Length of employment | ||||||
| <1 year | 15 (10.5) | 16 (8.0) | 19 (9.0) | 12 (8.5) | ||
| 1–2 years | 14 (9.8) | 32 (15.9) | 25 (11.9) | 22 (15.5) | ||
| 3–4 years | 31 (21.7) | 34 (16.9) | 45 (21.3) | 22 (15.5) | ||
| 5–7 years | 48 (33.6) | 56 (27.9) | 69 (32.7) | 38 (26.8) | ||
| ≥8 years | 34 (23.8) | 62 (30.8) | 51 (24.2) | 48 (33.8) | ||
| Missing | 1 (0.7) | 1 (0.5) | 0.125 | 2 (1.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.101 |
| Highest education | ||||||
| Below university degree | 42 (29.4) | 68 (33.8) | 65 (30.8) | 46 (32.4) | ||
| University degree | 67 (46.9) | 99 (49.3) | 100 (47.4) | 72 (50.7) | ||
| Postgraduate degree | 31 (21.7) | 32 (15.9) | 42 (19.9) | 22 (15.5) | ||
| Missing | 3 (2.1) | 2 (1.0) | 0.021 | 4 (1.9) | 2 (1.4) | 0.003 |
| Work environment | ||||||
| Urban | 77 (53.8) | 96 (47.8) | 106 (50.2) | 70 (49.3) | ||
| Rural | 63 (44.1) | 102 (50.7) | 99 (46.9) | 71 (50.0) | ||
| Missing | 3 (2.1) | 3 (1.5) | 0.022 | 6 (2.8) | 1 (0.7) | 0.055 |
Violence characteristics
For analysis of violence characteristics, only study participants who answered ‘yes’ to assault on the survey were included. Of the EMTs who were physically assaulted, 44.6% (n=25) experienced a single episode of assault over the prior 12 months (as reported in table 4). Twenty-five (44.6%) of physical assault victims suffered at least two or more episodes over the prior 12 months. The majority of the assailants (37.5%, n=21) were related to the patient. Of the 56 victims of physical assault, 17.9% (n=10) were injured and 23.2% (n=13) sought medical attention after the incident. Weapons were used in 7.1% (n=4) of physical assault cases.
Table 4.
Characteristics of violence
| Characteristics | N (%) Physical assault | N (%) Verbal assault |
| N | 56 | 143 |
| How often | ||
| Once | 25 (44.6) | 40 (28.0) |
| 2–3 times | 13 (23.2) | 65 (45.4 |
| 4–6 times | 8 (14.3) | 19 (13.3) |
| ≥7 times | 4 (7.1) | 17 (11.9) |
| Missing | 6 (23.2) | 2 (1.4) |
| Weapons involved | ||
| Yes | 4 (7.1) | n/a |
| No | 41 (73.2) | n/a |
| Missing | 11 (19.6) | n/a |
| Was assault reported? | ||
| Yes | 23 (41.1) | 73 (51.0) |
| No | 31 (55.4) | 58 (40.6) |
| Missing | 2 (3.6) | 12 (8.4) |
| Why was assault not reported? | ||
| Afraid | 12 (21.4) | 27 (18.9) |
| Ashamed | 2 (3.6) | 4 (2.8) |
| It was not important | 5 (8.9) | 18 (12.6) |
| Felt guilty | 2 (3.6) | 4 (2.8) |
| Afraid of consequences | 13 (23.2) | 25 (17.5) |
| Nothing would happen | 13 (23.2) | 30 (21.0) |
| Missing | 9 (16.1) | 35 24.5) |
| Who was the attacker? | ||
| Patient | 3 (5.4) | 17 (11.9) |
| Relative | 21 (37.5) | 47 (32.9) |
| Bystander | 14 (25) | 30 (21.0) |
| Coworker | 3 (5.4) | 13 (9.1) |
| Hospital worker | 7 (12.5) | 26 (18.2) |
| Mob of people | 8 (14.3) | 25 (17.5) |
| Police officer | 1 (1.8) | 9 (6.3) |
| Other | 5 (8.9) | 16 (11.2) |
| Missing | 7 (12.5) | 10 (7.0) |
| Gender of attacker | ||
| Male | 44 (78.6) | 109 (76.2) |
| Female | 2 (3.6) | 9 (6.3) |
| Both | 0 (0) | 11 (7.7) |
| Missing | 10 (17.9) | 14 (9.8) |
| Physical injury | ||
| Yes | 10 (17.9) | n/a |
| No | 36 (64.3) | n/a |
| Missing | 10 (17.9) | n/a |
| Type of injury | ||
| Laceration | 9 (16.1) | n/a |
| Head injury | 4 (7.1) | n/a |
| Broken bone | 2 (3.6) | n/a |
| Bruising | 9 (16.1) | n/a |
| Missing | 35 (62.5) | n/a |
| Did you seek medical attention? | ||
| Yes | 13 (23.2) | n/a |
| No | 30 (53.6) | n/a |
| Missing | 13 (23.2) | n/a |
Most verbal assault victims (70.6%, n=101) experienced at least two or more of episodes of verbal assault over the prior 12 months (table 4). Similar to physical assault, most of the verbal assaulters (32.9%, n=47) were relatives of the patients.
Safety concerns
Table 5 summarises EMT safety concerns. In total, 56.0% (n=216) of survey respondents reported they were ‘somewhat worried’ and 27.7% (n=107) reported they were ‘very worried’ about their overall safety at work. Additionally, 45.6% (n=176) reported they were somewhat worried and 15.5% (n=60) reported they were very worried about physical assault at work. Overall, 34.5% of EMTs reported that they occasionally placed themselves in danger at work, while 4.9% reported that they placed themselves in danger frequently or ‘all the time’. Despite these widespread safety concerns, 78.5% of EMTs surveyed reported that they had not received specific training on how to manage violence in the workplace.
Table 5.
Safety concerns
| Survey question | N (%) |
| Worried about safety? | |
| Not at all | 54 (14.0) |
| Somewhat | 216 (56.0) |
| Very worried | 107 (27.7) |
| Missing | 9 (2.3) |
| How often have you placed yourself in danger? | |
| Never | 134 (34.7) |
| Rarely | 73 (18.9) |
| Occasionally | 133 (34.5) |
| Frequently | 19 (4.9) |
| All the time | 7 (1.8) |
| Missing | 20 (5.2) |
| Have you been encouraged to place yourself in danger? | |
| Yes | 111 (28.8) |
| No | 251 (65.0) |
| Missing | 24 (6.2) |
| Are you worried about physical assault? | |
| Not at all | 122 (31.6) |
| Somewhat | 176 (45.6) |
| Very worried | 60 (15.5) |
| Missing | 28 (7.3) |
| Were you encouraged to report physical assault? | |
| Yes | 105 (27.2) |
| No | 236 (61.1) |
| Missing | 45 (11.7) |
| Have you received training on physical assault? | |
| Yes | 31 (8.0) |
| No | 303 (78.5) |
| Missing | 52 (13.5) |
Associations
Table 6 reports on associations between EMT characteristics and verbal or physical assault experiences.
Table 6.
Associations
| Characteristics | Combined PA in previous 12 months | Combined VA in previous 12 months |
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
| Age, years | ||
| Reference: age ≥35 | ||
| 20–24 | 1.04 (0.38 to 2.83) | 2.09 (0.74 to 5.92) |
| 25–29 | 1.32 (0.52 to 3.32) | 3.11 (1.18 to 8.22)* |
| 30–34 | 0.57 (0.23 to 1.41) | 1.86 (0.72 to 4.83) |
| State | ||
| Reference: Telangana | ||
| Gujarat | 8.12 (3.71 to 17.79)* | 0.97 (0.51 to 1.82) |
| Karnataka | 1.98 (1.13 to 3.46)* | 0.5 (0.29 to 0.86)* |
| Tamil Nadu | 1.93 (1.02 to 3.67)* | 0.94 (0.49 to 1.79) |
| Length of employment | ||
| Reference: <1 year | ||
| 1–2 years | 0.63 (0.25 to 1.61) | 0.72 (0.28 to 1.80) |
| 3–4 years | 1.23 (0.50 to 3.01) | 1.29 (0.53 to 3.12) |
| 5–7 years | 1.05 (0.46 to 2.39) | 1.15 (0.50 to 2.61) |
| >/=8 years | 0.65 (0.28 to 1.48) | 0.67 (0.29 to 1.53) |
| Education | ||
| Reference: below university | ||
| University degree | 0.28 (0.16 to 0.48)* | 0.98 (0.61 to 1.60) |
| Postgraduate degree | 0.23 (0.12 to 0.46)* | 1.35 (0.71 to 2.56) |
*Significant at p=0.05.
PA, physical assault; VA, verbal assault.
For verbal assault, compared with EMTs 35 years, EMTs between the ages of 25 and 29 years were significantly more likely to report verbal assault in the previous 12 months (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.18 to 8.22). Compared with the state of Telangana, EMTs practicing in the state of Karnataka were half as likely to report verbal assault over the previous 12 months (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86).
When compared with EMTs working in the state of Telangana, those in Gujarat (OR 8.12; 95% CI 3.71 to 17.79), Karnataka (OR 1.98; 95% CI 1.13 to 3.46) and Tamil Nadu (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.67) were significantly more likely to report physical assault in the prior 12 months. Those EMTs with a university degree (OR: 0.28; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48) and postgraduate degree (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46) were significantly less likely to report physical assault in the previous 12 months.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth assessment of workplace safety and violence among practicing EMTs in India, a unique subset of global healthcare providers. As the global community has begun to prioritise safety and retention of all healthcare workers, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have recognised the importance of ensuring a healthy workforce. However, only one of the SDG’s subtargets mentions these important healthcare workers.24 25 As a result, specific plans and interventions to meet this goal are still lacking. While there are many factors that contribute to the effective development and retention of healthcare workers, healthcare provider safety and protection from WPV are essential to creating a sustainable workforce as EMS grows globally.
Our study revealed that a significant percentage of EMTs that we surveyed (67.9%) had experienced some form of WPV in the prior 12 months. Furthermore, 58% of surveyed EMTs (95% CI 52.5% to 63.4%) had been physically assaulted, which is significantly higher than reported in most prior studies of global healthcare workers (18%–38%).1 7 13 26 Specifically, Indian EMTs were more likely to experience physical assault than emergency department workers in Karachi, Pakistan (16.5%) and Johannesburg, South Africa (17%).1 13 27 While a recent multicenter study of EMTs in Iran revealed rates of physical assault (60.3%) comparable to our Indian study population (58%),14 physical violence among EMTs was less frequent in Saudi Arabia (8.3%), Chile (13.5%) and a prior study from Iran (38%).14 15 27 28 More than half of our participants also experienced verbal assault (59.8%; 95% CI 54.5% to 65%). Yet, Indian EMTs were less likely to experience verbal assault than emergency department workers in Karachi, Pakistan (72.5%), Australia (67%) and EMTs in Iran (78.1%) and Saudi Arabia (61%), while more likely than EMTs in Chile (46.6%).1 14 15
Secondarily, our investigation sought to identify predictors for verbal and physical assault. Our results revealed few significant associations between predictor variables and experiences of WPV. For physical assault, EMTs in Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu were significantly more likely to experience WPV. Indian EMTs with higher education were more likely to experience verbal assault but were significantly less likely to experience physical assault. Our study does not suggest that EMTs of any particular class are being targeted.
Additionally, our study revealed that EMTs in India are also concerned about their safety in the workplace with 83.7% of EMTs reporting they were somewhat or very worried about safety at work. However, in India and across much of the world, there is a paucity of specialised training on how to manage WPV and safety threats. In fact, 78.5% of respondents in our study reported they had not received any training on how to deal with such incidents.
To meet this training gap, there is a growing body of literature.26 29–31 One study identified six themes to consider both prior to and during an event: (1) knowledge of special populations; (2) ability to restrain or defend; (3) systems for advanced warning about potentially violent patients; (4) improved public awareness; (5) improved situational awareness among EMTs; and, (6) improved scene support from law enforcement.29
Our results echo the limited research to date, suggesting that a much broader effort is required to address workplace safety and violence among EMTs. Pathways for improved recognition and reporting of WPV are required. Specialised training programme for EMTs on dealing with WPV would be extremely beneficial. Finally, EMTs should be covered by regulations and/or policies to protect healthcare workers.
Limitations
In reviewing our survey results, there were several EMTs who initially answered no when queried about experiencing assault but subsequently answered questions that suggested they may have actually experienced assault. Because of this observation, the prevalence was calculated for those who answered no to violence, but a separate prevalence was calculated for those EMTs who answered no to violence but yes to specific questions about assault experiences. It was decided to include these individuals in the overall prevalence since their initial responses may have suggested a limited understanding of what constitutes WPV. WPV definitions according to the survey may be considered as part of a normal patient, or patient family reaction, rather than violence. In evaluating characteristics of violence, only EMTs who answered yes to experiencing violence on the initial survey questions were included because there was missing data from surveys completed by individuals who initially answered no to violence but subsequently answered one or more, but not all, specific questions about experiences with violence. Therefore, the denominator for any given violence characteristic was more reliable in individuals who answered yes to violence and then completed the rest of the questions about those experiences.
Many EMTs did not report assault experiences at the time of the actual event (55.4% of physical assault victims and 40.6% of verbal assault victims did not report). As reflected in prior studies of WPV,4 it is quite possible that many of the EMTs we surveyed may have continued to choose not to report their experiences with WPV, and that our observed prevalence of WPV may be underestimated. Encouraging EMTs to report on their experiences with WPV, and developing reporting protocols, is a key first step in ensuring the safety of prehospital care providers.
Since this is the first WPV study conducted among prehospital providers in India, we chose to adapt a survey instrument that was previously used on physicians and nurses in LMICs. This survey may not have the same validity when applied to our study population. Further, there was potential for selection bias, as study participants were selected based on the dates of enrolment for a required educational event. However, since attendance at these educational programme was mandatory for all practicing EMTs and the vast majority enrolled in our study, our research findings should be generalisable at least within India.
Conclusion
EMTs in India are experiencing WPV, both in physical and verbal assault, and threats to safety at high rates. These experiences often go unrecognised by EMTs and are likely underreported as a result. However, outside of location, our study revealed no significant individual EMT characteristics that predicted higher rates WPV. In addressing WPV in India and other global EMS agencies, future initiatives should focus on improving EMT recognition of violence, strengthening reporting pathways, identifying preventive measures and developing educational sessions for responding to violence when it occurs.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Twitter: @mtyk079
Contributors: BL, KK, JAN and MS designed this study. BL, KK, AM, WL and GVRR drafted the manuscript. BL, KK, AM, CG and JAN collected data and controlled quality. KN conducted the data analyses. All authors contributed to writing and publishing the final manuscript.
Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: None declared.
Patient consent for publication: Not required.
Ethics approval: Stanford University Institutional Review Board-41774 GVK EMRI Institutional Review Board.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement: Data are available upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Zafar W, Siddiqui E, Ejaz K, et al. Health care personnel and workplace violence in the emergency departments of a volatile Metropolis: results from Karachi, Pakistan. J Emerg Med 2013;45:761–72. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.04.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Behnam M, Tillotson RD, Davis SM, et al. Violence in the emergency department: a national survey of emergency medicine residents and attending physicians. J Emerg Med 2011;40:565–79. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2009.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kowalenko T, Gates D, Gillespie GL, et al. Prospective study of violence against ED workers. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:197–205. 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Pourshaikhian M, Abolghasem Gorji H, Aryankhesal A, et al. A systematic literature review: workplace violence against emergency medical services personnel. Arch Trauma Res 2016;5:e28734 10.5812/atr.28734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Schnapp BH, Slovis BH, Shah AD, et al. Workplace violence and harassment against emergency medicine residents. West J Emerg Med 2016;17:567–73. 10.5811/westjem.2016.6.30446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Suserud BO, Blomquist M, Johansson I. Experiences of threats and violence in the Swedish ambulance service. Accid Emerg Nurs 2002;10:127–35. 10.1054/aaen.2002.0361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Boyle M, Koritsas S, Coles J, et al. A pilot study of workplace violence towards paramedics. Emerg Med J 2007;24:760–3. 10.1136/emj.2007.046789 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Muzembo BA, Mbutshu LH, Ngatu NR, et al. Workplace violence towards Congolese health care workers: a survey of 436 healthcare facilities in Katanga Province, Democratic Republic of Congo. J Occup Health 2015;57:69–80. 10.1539/joh.14-0111-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Phillips JP. Workplace violence against health care workers in the United States. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1661–9. 10.1056/NEJMra1501998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Martino V. Relationship between work stress and workplace violence in the health sector. Workplace violence in the health sector. International Labour Office, International Council of Nurses, World Health Organization, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 11. ILO, ICN, WHO, PSI International labour office ILO international Council of nurses ICN World Health organization who public services international, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 12. World Health Organization Global health workforce alliance. Global strategy on human resources for health. World Health Organization, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Rahmani A, Hassankhani H, Mills J, et al. Exposure of Iranian emergency medical technicians to workplace violence: a cross-sectional analysis. Emerg Med Australas 2012;24:105–10. 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01494.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Hosseinikia SH, Zarei S, Najafi Kalyani M, et al. A cross-sectional multicenter study of workplace violence against prehospital emergency medical technicians. Emerg Med Int 2018;2018:7835676 10.1155/2018/7835676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Campo VR, Klijn TP. Verbal abuse and mobbing in pre-hospital care services in Chile. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2018;25:e2956 10.1590/1518-8345.2073.2956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Reichard AA, Marsh SM, Moore PH. Fatal and nonfatal injuries among emergency medical technicians and paramedics. Prehosp Emerg Care 2011;15:511–7. 10.3109/10903127.2011.598610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Deniz T, Saygun M, Eroğlu O, et al. Effect of exposure to violence on the development of burnoutsyndrome in ambulance staff. Turk J Med Sci 2016;46:296–302. 10.3906/sag-1406-53 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Kumar M, Verma M, Das T, et al. A study of workplace violence experienced by doctors and associated risk factors in a tertiary care hospital of South Delhi, India. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:LC06–10. 10.7860/JCDR/2016/22306.8895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Pulla P. Two Indian states promise to enforce act that punishes violent attacks against doctors. BMJ 2015;350:h2725 10.1136/bmj.h2725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Ambesh P. Violence against doctors in the Indian subcontinent: a rising bane. Indian Heart J 2016;68:749–50. 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.07.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Administration OSHA Guidelines for preventing workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers, 2015. Available: https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3148.pdf [Accessed 11 Nov 2018].
- 22. Taylor JA, Davis AL, Barnes B, et al. Injury risks of EMS responders: evidence from the National fire fighter near-miss reporting system. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007562 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing clinical research : an epidemiologic approach. 4th ed Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2013: 81. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Unived Nations Sustainable development goal 3. sustainable development goals. Available: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg3 [Accessed 10 Nov 2018].
- 25. de Francisco Shapovalova N, Meguid T, Campbell J. Health-care workers as agents of sustainable development. Lancet Glob Health 2015;3:e249–50. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70104-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Bigham BL, Jensen JL, Tavares W, et al. Paramedic self-reported exposure to violence in the emergency medical services (EMS) workplace: a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey. Prehosp Emerg Care 2014;18:489–94. 10.3109/10903127.2014.912703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Martino DV. Workplace violence in the health sector - country case studies: Brazil, Bulgarian, Lebanon, Portugal, South Africa, Thailand, plus an additional Australian study: synthesis report. Geneva: WHO, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Alharthy N, Mutairi MA, Alsahli A, et al. Workplace violence among emergency medical services workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. J Hosp Adm 2017;6:26–32. 10.5430/jha.v6n3p26 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Maguire BJ, O'Neill BJ, O'Meara P, et al. Preventing EMS workplace violence: a mixed-methods analysis of insights from assaulted medics. Injury 2018;49:1258–65. 10.1016/j.injury.2018.05.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Collopy KT, Kivlehan SM, Snyder SR. Recognizing and defusing aggressive patients. EMS world. Available: https://www.emsworld.com/article/10427168/recognizing-and-defusing-aggressive-patients [Accessed 3 May 2019]. [PubMed]
- 31. Erich J. How to manage your risk. EMS world. Available: http://www.emsworld.com/article/10845691/death-and-injury-risks-to-ems [Accessed 3 May 2019].
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.