Karissa M Fenwick1, Tana M Luger2,3, Karen E Dyer2, Joya G Chrystal2, Alison B Hamilton2,4, Elizabeth M Yano2,5,6, Ruth Klap2,4. 1. Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D), Los Angeles, CA, USA. karissa.fenwick@va.gov. 2. Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D), Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Covenant Health Network, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Jane & Terry Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, 885 Tiverton Drive, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-perpetrated sexual harassment adversely affects healthcare organizations, staff, and other patients, yet few institutions have clear policies to address it. Understanding the challenges to addressing patient-perpetrated harassment can inform development of institutional guidelines and interventions. OBJECTIVE: To identify challenges and stakeholder-driven recommendations for addressing patient-perpetrated sexual harassment of women staff and patients at Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative interviews with 24 staff, clinicians, and administrators across four VA healthcare facilities. PARTICIPANTS: We used snowball sampling to identify stakeholders with expertise in overseeing care environments, providing care to women patients, and/or managing disruptive patient behavior. APPROACH: We interviewed participants in-person or via phone using a semi-structured guide. Two members of the research team analyzed the interview data using the constant comparative method. KEY RESULTS: Participants identified challenges to addressing patient-perpetrated harassment of women staff and patients that were interrelated and spanned multiple levels. Perceived organizational-level challenges included a climate of tolerance for harassment, lack of formal policies, and insufficient leadership support. At the staff level, perceived challenges included ambiguity around defining harassment, fear of negatively impacting patient-staff dynamics, and competing priorities. Finally, participants identified patient-level challenges, including patient characteristics such as age, cognitive impairment, and psychiatric diagnoses that complicated assessments of intentionality and culpability. Participant recommendations focused on development and implementation of policies, reporting systems, public norms campaigns, staff and patient education, and bystander intervention training. CONCLUSIONS: VA offers unique opportunities for studying patient-perpetrated harassment of women staff and patients due to its majority-male patient population, culture informed by military gender norms, and commitment to reducing harassment at its facilities. Our findings highlight the complexity of addressing patient-perpetrated harassment and underscore the need for systemic, multilevel interventions.
BACKGROUND: Patient-perpetrated sexual harassment adversely affects healthcare organizations, staff, and other patients, yet few institutions have clear policies to address it. Understanding the challenges to addressing patient-perpetrated harassment can inform development of institutional guidelines and interventions. OBJECTIVE: To identify challenges and stakeholder-driven recommendations for addressing patient-perpetrated sexual harassment of women staff and patients at Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative interviews with 24 staff, clinicians, and administrators across four VA healthcare facilities. PARTICIPANTS: We used snowball sampling to identify stakeholders with expertise in overseeing care environments, providing care to women patients, and/or managing disruptive patient behavior. APPROACH: We interviewed participants in-person or via phone using a semi-structured guide. Two members of the research team analyzed the interview data using the constant comparative method. KEY RESULTS: Participants identified challenges to addressing patient-perpetrated harassment of women staff and patients that were interrelated and spanned multiple levels. Perceived organizational-level challenges included a climate of tolerance for harassment, lack of formal policies, and insufficient leadership support. At the staff level, perceived challenges included ambiguity around defining harassment, fear of negatively impacting patient-staff dynamics, and competing priorities. Finally, participants identified patient-level challenges, including patient characteristics such as age, cognitive impairment, and psychiatric diagnoses that complicated assessments of intentionality and culpability. Participant recommendations focused on development and implementation of policies, reporting systems, public norms campaigns, staff and patient education, and bystander intervention training. CONCLUSIONS: VA offers unique opportunities for studying patient-perpetrated harassment of women staff and patients due to its majority-male patient population, culture informed by military gender norms, and commitment to reducing harassment at its facilities. Our findings highlight the complexity of addressing patient-perpetrated harassment and underscore the need for systemic, multilevel interventions.
Authors: Maj Britt D Nielsen; Susie Kjær; Per T Aldrich; Ida E H Madsen; Maria K Friborg; Reiner Rugulies; Anna P Folker Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Ruth Klap; Jill E Darling; Alison B Hamilton; Danielle E Rose; Karen Dyer; Ismelda Canelo; Sally Haskell; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2019-01-25
Authors: Maria K Friborg; Jørgen V Hansen; Per T Aldrich; Anna P Folker; Susie Kjær; Maj Britt D Nielsen; Reiner Rugulies; Ida E H Madsen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Karissa M Fenwick; Karen E Dyer; Ruth Klap; Kristina Oishi; Jessica L Moreau; Elizabeth M Yano; Bevanne Bean-Mayberry; Anne G Sadler; Alison B Hamilton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Ishwaria M Subbiah; Merry Jennifer Markham; Stephanie L Graff; Laurie B Matt-Amaral; Julia L Close; Kent A Griffith; Reshma Jagsi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 44.544