Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Aggression and violence are major concerns in emergency departments (EDs), and have negative consequences for patient and staff health and safety. Few validated tools exist for identifying patients at risk of agitation. This study conducted a systematic literature review to identify and summarize the scores that predict aggressive behavior in EDs.
METHODS: The search included articles published between Jan 1st, 1987, and Dec 31st, 2022, using the terms \"aggress*,\" \"violent*,\" \"emergency,\" \"acute,\" \"score,\" or \"scale.\"
RESULTS: Ten scores were found to be relevant, with eight of the developed scores intended for use in EDs. The Aggressive Behavior Risk Assessment Tool (ABRAT) was found to be sensitive (84.3%) and specific (95.3%). The Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) was highly specific (99.4%), whereas the Violence Screening Checklist (VSC) was less sensitive (57.2%) and specific (45.7%). The violence and aggression (OVA)/BVC checklist was found to significantly decrease the number of security call activations (P < 0.001). The Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) and OVA/BVC scores were the shortest, with seven and six items, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The OVA/BVC checklist is a valuable tool for predicting and preventing violence in the EDs. Future prospective studies should investigate its effectiveness.
METHODS: The search included articles published between Jan 1st, 1987, and Dec 31st, 2022, using the terms \"aggress*,\" \"violent*,\" \"emergency,\" \"acute,\" \"score,\" or \"scale.\"
RESULTS: Ten scores were found to be relevant, with eight of the developed scores intended for use in EDs. The Aggressive Behavior Risk Assessment Tool (ABRAT) was found to be sensitive (84.3%) and specific (95.3%). The Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) was highly specific (99.4%), whereas the Violence Screening Checklist (VSC) was less sensitive (57.2%) and specific (45.7%). The violence and aggression (OVA)/BVC checklist was found to significantly decrease the number of security call activations (P < 0.001). The Behavioral Activity Rating Scale (BARS) and OVA/BVC scores were the shortest, with seven and six items, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The OVA/BVC checklist is a valuable tool for predicting and preventing violence in the EDs. Future prospective studies should investigate its effectiveness.
摘要：
背景：侵略和暴力是急诊部门（ED）的主要问题，并对患者和工作人员的健康和安全产生负面影响。很少有经过验证的工具来识别有躁动风险的患者。本研究进行了系统的文献综述，以确定和总结预测ED攻击行为的得分。
方法：搜索内容包括1月1日之间发表的文章，1987年和12月31日，2022年，使用术语“aggress*”，\"\"暴力*,\"\"紧急情况,“\”急性，\"\"得分,“或”刻度。\"
结果：发现十个分数是相关的，开发的分数中有8个用于ED。攻击行为风险评估工具（ABRAT）被发现是敏感的（84.3％）和特定的（95.3％）。Brøset暴力清单（BVC）具有高度特异性（99.4％），而暴力筛查清单（VSC）的敏感性较低（57.2％）和特异性较低（45.7％）。发现暴力和侵略（OVA）/BVC清单显着减少了安全呼叫激活的数量（P<0.001）。行为活动评定量表（BARS）和OVA/BVC评分最短，有七个和六个项目，分别。
结论：OVA/BVC检查表是预测和预防ED暴力的有价值的工具。未来的前瞻性研究应该调查其有效性。
方法：搜索内容包括1月1日之间发表的文章，1987年和12月31日，2022年，使用术语“aggress*”，\"\"暴力*,\"\"紧急情况,“\”急性，\"\"得分,“或”刻度。\"
结果：发现十个分数是相关的，开发的分数中有8个用于ED。攻击行为风险评估工具（ABRAT）被发现是敏感的（84.3％）和特定的（95.3％）。Brøset暴力清单（BVC）具有高度特异性（99.4％），而暴力筛查清单（VSC）的敏感性较低（57.2％）和特异性较低（45.7％）。发现暴力和侵略（OVA）/BVC清单显着减少了安全呼叫激活的数量（P<0.001）。行为活动评定量表（BARS）和OVA/BVC评分最短，有七个和六个项目，分别。
结论：OVA/BVC检查表是预测和预防ED暴力的有价值的工具。未来的前瞻性研究应该调查其有效性。
