Attitudes Toward the Use of a Metal Detector in an Urban Emergency Department

Byline: Tom Meyer, Keith Wrenn, Seth W Wright, Judd Glaser, Corey M Slovis 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.] Article History: Received 30 September 1996; Revised 15 November 1996; Accepted 21 November 1996 Article Note: (footnote) [star] From the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee., [star][star] Reprint no.47/1/80645 , a Address for reprints: Seth Wright, MD Department of Emergency Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center 703 Oxford House Nashville, TN 37232-4700