By Elaina Myers, Assistant Editor

Workplace violence in healthcare is a huge issue affecting U.S. health systems. According to an American Health Association (AHA) report, incidents of violence have significantly increased in the U.S. over the past decade, especially in the wake of the COVID pandemic. In 2023 alone, the financial cost of violence to hospitals is estimated at $18.27 billion.  

A recent Medscape survey found that around 43 percent of physicians from medical practice offices don’t feel adequately protected from violence or worse, according to the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). And nearly 70 percent of hospital physicians say physical security is a greater concern than it was three years ago. Yet despite growing legislative momentum, many hospitals are still relying on outdated security approaches.  

“Healthcare facilities are uniquely open, high-stress, high-traffic environments,” says Eric Polovich, director of product and partner enablement at Omnilert. “Hospitals remain soft targets where large environments and constant public access can be exploited without proper proactive measures in place.”  

As a result, keeping entry points secure requires more than just adding personnel.  

“A few guards cannot realistically monitor hundreds of cameras, multiple floors, entrances and outdoor areas at the same time. This is a fundamental human limitation,” Polovich says. “Continuous monitoring can lead to fatigue, missed incidents and delayed responses.”  

At the same time, some of the most significant risks originate internally.  

Related Content: Study Clarifies Prevalence of Workplace Violence

“Security is not just about who is on-site, it’s about who you allowed on-site in the first place,” says Justin Biedinger, founder and president of Guardian Alliance Technologies.  

In many organizations, vetting processes remain inconsistent and outdated. 

“Proper vetting should go beyond basic background checks. It is a structured investigation that is standardized, well documented and consistent across every hire,” Biedinger says. “The process should be thorough enough that if you had to defend that hiring decision later, you could clearly show the steps that were taken and why.” 

Hospitals also tend to deploy screening systems that are ill-suited to the realities of healthcare violence.  

“More often, threat items are small-bladed weapons or improvised weapons. These are the kinds of items that should be the focus when selecting screening technologies,” says Steve Novakovich, CEO at Garrett Metal Detectors. “If a technology is capable of finding a box cutter with a plastic handle it will do just fine when it is presented with a large handgun.” 

Technology is playing a growing role in addressing both external and internal gaps, but without proper testing and coordination it can also fall short. 

“Hospitals often deploy cameras, access control and communication systems independently, without integrating them into a coordinated response workflow,” Polovich says. “When a real incident unfolds, that fragmentation becomes immediately costly.” 

In an era of rising workplace violence, effective hospital security demands proactive threat detection, rigorous vetting processes and screening technology aligned and coordinated to actual risks.  

“Hospital security must be thought of as an essential function in the same way that decision makers for courthouses and government buildings have come to appreciate,” Novakovich says. “The safety and security of the community is now the responsibility of the operator of the facility.” 

Elaina Myers is the assistant editor of the facilities market.