STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of patients, their family and friends, and ED staff toward a walk-through metal detector in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a survey of a convenience sample of ED patrons (patients and their friends and family) and staff at a university-affiliated Level I trauma center. RESULTS: We surveyed 176 patrons and 95 employees (35 nurses, 30 physicians, 16 security officers, and 14 staff members). Overall, 80% of the patrons and 85% of the employees said they liked the metal detector. Eighty-nine percent of the patrons and 73% of the employees said the metal detector made them feel safer. Only 12% of the patrons and 10% of the employees said the metal detector invaded their privacy or the privacy of others. Fewer than 1% of the patrons said they were less likely to return to our ED because of the metal detector, and 39% said it made them more likely to return. We detected no significant differences with regard to age, sex, or race. CONCLUSION: Most patrons and staff liked the metal detector and said it created a safer ED environment. Only a few disliked the presence of the metal detector or said it invaded their privacy. Institutions concerned about their employees' and patrons' perceptions of safety should consider installing metal detectors in their EDs.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the attitudes of patients, their family and friends, and ED staff toward a walk-through metal detector in the ED. METHODS: We conducted a survey of a convenience sample of ED patrons (patients and their friends and family) and staff at a university-affiliated Level I trauma center. RESULTS: We surveyed 176 patrons and 95 employees (35 nurses, 30 physicians, 16 security officers, and 14 staff members). Overall, 80% of the patrons and 85% of the employees said they liked the metal detector. Eighty-nine percent of the patrons and 73% of the employees said the metal detector made them feel safer. Only 12% of the patrons and 10% of the employees said the metal detector invaded their privacy or the privacy of others. Fewer than 1% of the patrons said they were less likely to return to our ED because of the metal detector, and 39% said it made them more likely to return. We detected no significant differences with regard to age, sex, or race. CONCLUSION: Most patrons and staff liked the metal detector and said it created a safer ED environment. Only a few disliked the presence of the metal detector or said it invaded their privacy. Institutions concerned about their employees' and patrons' perceptions of safety should consider installing metal detectors in their EDs.
Authors: Susan M Kansagra; Sowmya R Rao; Ashley F Sullivan; James A Gordon; David J Magid; Rainu Kaushal; Carlos A Camargo; David Blumenthal Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 3.451