ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Fight, flight, freeze, fawn: mapping emergency department staff stress responses to workplace violence - a mixed-methods study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Workplace violence and aggression are escalating in emergency departments (EDs) globally, yet the self-reported psychological and behavioural responses in clinicians to such stressors remain underexplored. Trauma theory conceptualises stress responses as fight, flight, freeze, and fawn (4Fs); but how these responses manifest in ED staff before, during and after violent incidents has received limited empirical attention. Methods: This mixed-methods study analysed data collected between 2019 and 2023 across four emergency departments within one Australian local health district. Data sources included semi-structured interviews (2019; n = 20), focus groups (2021; n = 30 participants), a cross-sectional survey (2023; n = 61), and follow-up interviews (2023; n = 12). Qualitative data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis, applying a deductive framework informed by the 4Fs. Quantitative survey data were integrated to examine the distribution of stress responses across reported incidents. Results: Across all data sources, 123 ED staff described 145 coded instances of the 4F stress responses: fight (n=94); flight (n=24), freeze (n=15), and fawn (n=12). Four overarching themes that underpinned these responses were identified: 1) Moral and emotional impact on clinicians, 2) Safety systems interface, 3) Organisational constraints and environment and 4) Patient Complexity. Participants described sustained hyperarousal, anticipatory vigilance, moral distress, emotional withdrawal, and appeasement behaviours arising from repeated exposure to violence. While Code Black responses were viewed as a structured and effective "organised fight" mechanism, this was compromised by inconsistent training, role ambiguity, and limited post-incident support which contributed to burnout, disengagement, and workforce attrition. Conclusion: Emergency department clinicians operate in persistently threatening environments that drive recurrent activation of fight, flight, freeze, and fawn responses with cumulative individual and system-level consequences. Behavioural emergencies warrant the same level of preparation, standardisation, and organisational support as other high-risk clinical events, such as a Code Blue - a life-threatening medical event with a responding Medical Emergency Team. Trauma-informed education team-based training, and embedded post-incident support are critical to safeguarding staff wellbeing and sustaining the ED workforce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.