The Experts below are selected from a list of 14952 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Corey M. Slovis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department
Annals of emergency medicine, 1997Co-Authors: Tom Meyer, Keith Wrenn, Seth W. Wright, Judd Glaser, Corey M. SlovisAbstract:Abstract 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. [Meyer T, Wrenn K, Wright SW, Glaser J, Slovis CM: Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med May 1997; 29:621-624.]
Seth W. Wright - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Metal Detectors in the pediatric emergency department: patron attitudes and national prevalence.
Pediatric emergency care, 2000Co-Authors: Elisabeth A. Mattox, Seth W. Wright, Andrea C. BracikowskiAbstract:OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate patron attitudes toward a walk through a Metal Detector that was used for universal weapon screening in a pediatric emergency department. Additionally, we conducted a telephone survey to determine the nationwide prevalence of Metal Detectors in pediatric emergency departments. METHODS: A convenience sample of family and acquaintances of patients seen in the pediatric emergency department was selected, and members were interviewed using scripted questions. Members of the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions were interviewed for the nationwide survey. RESULTS: The vast majority of patrons responded favorably to the presence of the arch-style walk through a Metal Detector. The Metal Detector was felt to be appropriate in a pediatric emergency department by a large majority of patrons and was protective for both patrons and employees. Handbag searches were felt to be an invasion of privacy by 14%. Nationwide, the prevalence of arch-style Metal Detectors for security purposes in pediatric emergency departments was only 6%. CONCLUSIONS: The public has a strong perception that a Metal Detector protects both patrons and employees in a pediatric emergency department. Fear that patrons will be disturbed or that the presence of a Metal Detector will reflect negatively upon the institution appear to be unfounded. Nationwide use of Metal Detectors in pediatric emergency departments remains uncommon but is apparently increasing. Language: en
-
Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department
Annals of emergency medicine, 1997Co-Authors: Tom Meyer, Keith Wrenn, Seth W. Wright, Judd Glaser, Corey M. SlovisAbstract:Abstract 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. [Meyer T, Wrenn K, Wright SW, Glaser J, Slovis CM: Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med May 1997; 29:621-624.]
Tom Meyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department
Annals of emergency medicine, 1997Co-Authors: Tom Meyer, Keith Wrenn, Seth W. Wright, Judd Glaser, Corey M. SlovisAbstract:Abstract 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. [Meyer T, Wrenn K, Wright SW, Glaser J, Slovis CM: Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med May 1997; 29:621-624.]
Judd Glaser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department
Annals of emergency medicine, 1997Co-Authors: Tom Meyer, Keith Wrenn, Seth W. Wright, Judd Glaser, Corey M. SlovisAbstract:Abstract 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. [Meyer T, Wrenn K, Wright SW, Glaser J, Slovis CM: Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med May 1997; 29:621-624.]
Keith Wrenn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department
Annals of emergency medicine, 1997Co-Authors: Tom Meyer, Keith Wrenn, Seth W. Wright, Judd Glaser, Corey M. SlovisAbstract:Abstract 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. [Meyer T, Wrenn K, Wright SW, Glaser J, Slovis CM: Attitudes toward the use of a Metal Detector in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med May 1997; 29:621-624.]