The core question addresses the appropriateness of utilizing the LEAP (Listen-Empathize-Agree-Partner) communication technique when confronted with aggressive behavior from a patient. This involves actively listening to the patient’s concerns, demonstrating empathy towards their feelings, finding areas of agreement to build rapport, and partnering with the patient to collaboratively find solutions. An example would be responding to a patient yelling about a delayed appointment by saying, “I understand your frustration about the wait (empathy), and I agree that your time is valuable (agreement). Let’s see what we can do to get you seen as soon as possible (partnering).”
Employing de-escalation strategies like LEAP can be crucial in managing potentially volatile situations. Benefits include minimizing escalation, improving patient understanding, building trust, and potentially avoiding the need for physical intervention. Historically, managing aggressive patient behavior often relied on more authoritarian methods; however, evidence-based communication strategies are increasingly recognized for their effectiveness in promoting a safer and more therapeutic environment.
The following discussion will delve into factors influencing the decision to use communication-based de-escalation, the specific steps involved in the LEAP technique, alternative strategies if LEAP proves ineffective, and legal and ethical considerations when managing aggressive patient behavior.
1. Immediate Safety Assessment
An immediate safety assessment forms the critical first step in determining the appropriateness of employing the LEAP communication technique when confronted with patient aggression. This assessment involves evaluating the immediate threat level posed by the patient’s behavior. The decision to use LEAP hinges directly on this evaluation; if the patient presents an imminent danger to themselves or others, prioritizing physical safety and security protocols supersedes attempting verbal de-escalation. For instance, if a patient is actively wielding a weapon or exhibiting violent physical behavior, initiating security protocols and ensuring immediate safety for all parties involved is paramount. In such scenarios, attempting a LEAP interaction would be imprudent and potentially dangerous.
The primary objective of the immediate safety assessment is to ascertain the difference between aggressive behavior that might respond to de-escalation techniques and behavior requiring immediate intervention for safety reasons. Key indicators during the assessment include the patient’s body language (e.g., clenched fists, pacing), vocal tone (e.g., shouting, threats), and the presence of any weapons or objects that could be used as weapons. Furthermore, the assessor must consider the patient’s history of violence and any known psychiatric conditions that might contribute to the aggression. This assessment is not a passive observation; it requires rapid, decisive judgment based on available information and training in recognizing escalating aggression.
In summary, an immediate safety assessment provides the foundational context for determining whether LEAP is a suitable intervention strategy. If the assessment reveals an immediate and significant threat, direct intervention focused on securing safety is the priority. Conversely, if the assessment indicates a lower level of threat and the absence of immediate danger, LEAP or other communication-based de-escalation techniques may be considered as a means of resolving the situation safely and therapeutically. The accuracy and thoroughness of this initial assessment significantly influence the overall effectiveness and safety of the response.
2. Contextual Factors
The appropriateness of employing LEAP communication during patient aggression is heavily influenced by contextual factors. These factors encompass the immediate environment, preceding events, and the overall circumstances surrounding the aggressive episode. The utility of LEAP is not universally applicable; its success depends on a careful analysis of the situation’s context. A patient exhibiting aggression due to withdrawal symptoms in a detox environment requires a different approach than a patient displaying aggression stemming from perceived mistreatment in a long-term care facility. Understanding the triggers and antecedents to the aggression is critical for selecting the most effective intervention strategy. LEAP may prove effective if the aggression is rooted in misunderstanding or unmet needs, but less so if driven by acute psychosis or organic brain dysfunction. The physical setting also matters; a crowded, noisy environment might exacerbate the situation, requiring a different response compared to a calm, private setting.
Specific examples illustrate the importance of contextual awareness. In an emergency room, a patient experiencing pain and anxiety following a traumatic injury may become verbally aggressive towards staff. In this case, LEAP could be used to acknowledge the patient’s pain and anxiety, explain the treatment process, and offer reassurance. However, if that same patient were simultaneously exhibiting signs of delirium or altered mental status, a more direct, medically-focused intervention would take precedence. Similarly, a patient in a psychiatric unit with a history of violence may require a more cautious and structured approach, with LEAP used in conjunction with other de-escalation techniques and safety protocols. The presence of family members or other patients also shapes the context and may influence the choice of intervention.
In conclusion, contextual factors play a pivotal role in determining whether LEAP is a suitable intervention for patient aggression. A thorough assessment of the environment, the patient’s history and mental state, and the events leading up to the aggressive episode is essential. While LEAP can be a valuable tool for de-escalation, it should be employed judiciously and in conjunction with other strategies, always prioritizing the safety of the patient and staff. Recognizing and adapting to the specific context is paramount for achieving positive outcomes and maintaining a therapeutic environment.
3. Patient’s Mental State
The patient’s mental state represents a critical determinant in the suitability of the LEAP communication technique for managing aggressive behavior. The efficacy of LEAP hinges on the patient’s capacity for rational thought and emotional regulation. Certain mental states, such as acute psychosis, severe intoxication, or significant cognitive impairment, severely limit or negate the patient’s ability to engage in the reciprocal communication required for LEAP to be effective. For example, a patient experiencing paranoid delusions may misinterpret empathetic statements as manipulative or threatening, thereby escalating the situation rather than de-escalating it. Therefore, assessing the patient’s cognitive and emotional status before attempting LEAP is essential to avoid potentially counterproductive outcomes.
Conversely, LEAP may prove valuable when aggression stems from anxiety, frustration, or a perceived lack of control in patients with relatively intact cognitive abilities. For instance, a patient with a history of anxiety who becomes agitated due to a delayed medical procedure may respond positively to empathetic listening and collaborative problem-solving, key components of the LEAP approach. Acknowledging their feelings and working together to find a solution can restore a sense of control and reduce their agitation. The mental state assessment informs the level of directness and support needed. Some patients may require simple, clear explanations and reassurance, while others may benefit from a more in-depth discussion of their concerns. Misjudging the patient’s mental state can lead to an inappropriate application of LEAP, undermining its effectiveness and potentially exacerbating the aggressive behavior.
In conclusion, a comprehensive understanding of the patient’s mental state forms the cornerstone of deciding whether to implement LEAP when faced with aggression. While LEAP offers a valuable tool for de-escalation in appropriate circumstances, it is not a universally applicable solution. Challenges arise in situations where the patient’s mental state impairs their capacity for rational communication and engagement. Therefore, a thorough assessment of cognitive function, emotional stability, and underlying psychiatric conditions is crucial for determining the suitability of LEAP and ensuring the safety of both the patient and the healthcare provider.
4. Staff Training Adequacy
The decision to employ LEAP communication during patient aggression is inextricably linked to the adequacy of staff training in de-escalation techniques. Insufficient training renders the application of LEAP ineffective, potentially exacerbating the situation and compromising safety. Adequate training equips staff with the skills to accurately assess a patient’s mental state, identify contextual factors contributing to the aggression, and appropriately implement the LEAP framework. Without this foundation, staff may misinterpret cues, fail to establish rapport, or use the technique inappropriately, leading to negative outcomes. For example, a staff member lacking proper training might offer reassurance in a dismissive tone, which would be counterproductive. A hospital with a robust training program, including role-playing scenarios and ongoing competency assessments, will see increased confidence and success in using LEAP compared to one where de-escalation training is minimal or absent.
Effective training programs emphasize not only the steps of LEAP but also the underlying principles of empathy, active listening, and collaborative problem-solving. They include instruction on recognizing escalating behavior, understanding the influence of mental illness and substance use on aggression, and adapting communication styles to individual patient needs. Furthermore, comprehensive training incorporates non-verbal communication skills, such as maintaining a calm and non-threatening posture, and creating a safe physical distance. Scenarios should cover a variety of patient populations and behavioral manifestations to provide staff with the experience needed to adapt LEAP effectively in real-world situations. The practical application of this knowledge allows staff to assess if LEAP is suitable for the situation, and how to adapt the technique if the patient responds in an unexpected manner. The presence of regular refresher courses and opportunities for continuing education ensures that staff maintain proficiency and stay up-to-date on best practices.
In summary, the effectiveness of LEAP in de-escalating patient aggression is directly dependent on the adequacy of staff training. Comprehensive and ongoing training programs are essential to equip staff with the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to implement LEAP appropriately and safely. Deficiencies in training can lead to misapplication of the technique, compromising patient and staff safety. Investment in robust training programs is a critical component of a comprehensive strategy for managing patient aggression and promoting a therapeutic environment.
5. Environmental Security
Environmental security is intrinsically linked to the decision of whether to employ LEAP communication techniques when managing patient aggression. The physical environment significantly influences patient agitation levels and the feasibility of de-escalation strategies. A secure environment minimizes potential triggers for aggression and provides a safer setting for staff to implement LEAP. For example, a poorly lit, overcrowded waiting room with long wait times can elevate patient anxiety, potentially leading to aggressive outbursts. Conversely, a well-maintained, calming environment with clear signage, comfortable seating, and efficient processes can reduce patient stress and increase the likelihood that LEAP communication will be effective. The availability of security personnel and easily accessible panic buttons further enhances the sense of safety and support for staff attempting de-escalation.
The absence of environmental security measures can directly impede the successful application of LEAP. If staff feel unsafe or perceive a lack of support, they may be less inclined to engage in empathetic communication and more likely to resort to reactive measures. A setting with readily available objects that could be used as weapons (e.g., sharp instruments, heavy objects) poses an immediate threat and necessitates prioritizing safety over attempting verbal de-escalation. Conversely, a setting with controlled access, restricted potentially dangerous items, and a clear evacuation plan facilitates a more measured and deliberate approach. For instance, in a psychiatric unit designed with patient safety in mind, LEAP can be used more confidently, knowing that environmental risks are minimized. This also involves appropriate layout of the room ensuring staff have an easy exit and can maintain a safe distance.
In conclusion, environmental security is a crucial pre-requisite for the effective implementation of LEAP when managing patient aggression. Prioritizing environmental safety reduces triggers for aggression, provides a safer setting for de-escalation attempts, and enhances staff confidence in using communication-based strategies. Healthcare facilities must invest in creating secure and therapeutic environments to support staff in managing patient aggression safely and effectively, facilitating better patient outcomes. Challenges remain in balancing patient autonomy with the need for environmental control, requiring careful planning and a collaborative approach involving clinical staff, security personnel, and facility management.
6. LEAP Suitability
The determination of LEAP suitability is central to addressing the question of whether to employ the LEAP (Listen-Empathize-Agree-Partner) communication technique when a patient initiates aggressive behavior. The following list delineates critical facets that influence the decision regarding LEAP’s appropriateness in such circumstances.
-
Patient’s Agitation Level
The degree of patient agitation is a primary factor. LEAP is most effective when the patient is in the early stages of escalation, exhibiting frustration or anxiety. If the patient has already reached a state of high agitation or violence, LEAP may be ineffective and could potentially escalate the situation further. An example would be a patient expressing dissatisfaction with wait times. A calm response utilizing LEAP is appropriate. Conversely, attempting LEAP with a patient actively engaging in physical assault would be contraindicated.
-
Patient’s Communication Capacity
The patient’s ability to engage in rational communication is essential for LEAP to be suitable. Conditions such as acute psychosis, severe cognitive impairment, or intoxication can significantly impair this capacity. Attempting LEAP with a patient experiencing active hallucinations is unlikely to be successful, as their perception of reality may be distorted. In contrast, LEAP may be appropriate for a patient experiencing anxiety or mild confusion who retains the capacity to understand and respond to empathetic communication.
-
Environmental Context
The surrounding environment significantly influences LEAP’s suitability. A chaotic or unsafe environment can exacerbate patient agitation and hinder effective communication. LEAP is best implemented in a secure, private, and relatively calm setting where the patient feels safe and respected. For instance, attempting LEAP in a crowded emergency room with multiple stimuli may be less effective than in a quiet consultation room. The presence of potential weapons or other hazards also reduces LEAP’s suitability.
-
Staff’s Comfort Level and Training
The healthcare provider’s comfort level and training in LEAP are critical determinants. If the staff member is not adequately trained or feels uncomfortable using LEAP, it is unlikely to be implemented effectively. Healthcare providers should receive comprehensive training in de-escalation techniques, including LEAP, to ensure they can confidently and safely use the approach. Regular practice and feedback are essential to maintain competency. A staff member feeling threatened is unlikely to convey the empathy needed for LEAP to work.
These facets highlight the nuanced decision-making process involved in determining LEAP suitability when addressing patient aggression. The appropriateness of employing LEAP depends on a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition, the surrounding environment, and the staff’s capabilities. Recognizing these factors is essential for ensuring the safety of both patients and healthcare providers while promoting effective de-escalation strategies.
7. De-escalation Alternatives
The question of whether to employ the LEAP communication technique when a patient initiates aggressive behavior necessitates a simultaneous consideration of de-escalation alternatives. LEAP (Listen-Empathize-Agree-Partner) is not universally applicable, and its suitability hinges on various factors, including the patient’s mental state, the immediate environment, and the level of immediate threat. When LEAP is deemed inappropriate or ineffective, having a repertoire of alternative de-escalation strategies is crucial. These alternatives provide options for managing the situation safely and therapeutically. For instance, if a patient is experiencing acute psychosis and is unresponsive to empathetic communication, alternative approaches might include medication or seclusion, in accordance with established clinical protocols.
De-escalation alternatives encompass a range of interventions, from non-verbal techniques to more direct strategies. Non-verbal techniques might involve maintaining a calm demeanor, ensuring adequate personal space, and avoiding confrontational body language. Verbal strategies could include setting clear limits, redirecting the patient’s attention, or offering choices to promote a sense of control. In situations where verbal de-escalation proves insufficient, pharmacological interventions or physical restraints may be necessary to ensure the safety of the patient and staff. For example, a patient exhibiting escalating agitation due to alcohol withdrawal might require medication to manage withdrawal symptoms and reduce the risk of violence. The choice of alternative strategy depends on a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition and the specific circumstances of the aggressive episode. Importantly, the implementation of these alternatives must adhere to ethical guidelines and legal regulations, prioritizing the patient’s well-being and minimizing the use of restrictive measures.
In conclusion, the decision framework of “should I use LEAP when my patient starts attacking me” inherently demands a clear understanding and readily available options concerning de-escalation alternatives. LEAP serves as one tool within a larger toolkit for managing patient aggression. When LEAP is not a viable option, the healthcare provider must be prepared to implement alternative strategies that prioritize safety, respect patient rights, and adhere to ethical and legal standards. Challenges lie in the need for ongoing staff training and the development of individualized care plans that anticipate and address potential triggers for aggression. Successfully managing patient aggression requires a flexible and adaptable approach that incorporates a range of de-escalation techniques and emphasizes the importance of early intervention and proactive risk management.
8. Legal Compliance
The intersection of legal compliance and determining whether to employ the LEAP (Listen-Empathize-Agree-Partner) technique when faced with patient aggression is paramount. Healthcare professionals are bound by legal and ethical obligations to provide a safe environment for both patients and staff. The decision to use LEAP, or any de-escalation strategy, must align with relevant legislation, institutional policies, and professional standards of care. A failure to comply can result in legal repercussions, including claims of negligence, battery, false imprisonment, or violation of patient rights. For example, employing physical restraints without proper justification or exceeding the bounds of reasonable force during a physical intervention can lead to legal liability. Therefore, understanding legal boundaries and adhering to established protocols is a critical component of deciding when and how to implement de-escalation techniques.
Legal compliance dictates the framework within which LEAP, and its alternatives, are considered. The Mental Health Act (where applicable) or equivalent legislation outlines the legal basis for detaining and treating individuals with mental disorders who pose a risk to themselves or others. These laws often specify the criteria for involuntary admission, the permissible use of restrictive interventions, and the rights of patients under these circumstances. Institutional policies, such as those related to restraint use or seclusion, further clarify these legal requirements and provide practical guidance for staff. For instance, many jurisdictions require documentation of all de-escalation efforts, including the rationale for choosing a particular intervention, the patient’s response, and any injuries sustained. A robust understanding of these legal and policy requirements enables healthcare professionals to make informed decisions that minimize legal risk while prioritizing patient safety. This understanding must be contextualized within a broader framework of patient rights, including the right to refuse treatment, the right to informed consent, and the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Neglecting these rights, even in the context of managing aggressive behavior, can have significant legal consequences. Real-world examples include successful lawsuits against healthcare facilities for failing to adequately train staff in de-escalation techniques, inappropriately using restraints, or violating patient confidentiality during an aggressive episode.
In conclusion, legal compliance forms an essential backdrop for the application of LEAP in managing patient aggression. The decision to employ LEAP, or alternative strategies, must be grounded in a thorough understanding of relevant legislation, institutional policies, and ethical principles. By prioritizing legal compliance, healthcare professionals can mitigate the risk of legal liability while promoting a safe and therapeutic environment for all. Challenges persist in balancing the need for patient safety with the protection of individual rights, requiring ongoing education, policy refinement, and a commitment to evidence-based practice. Therefore, understanding legal implications informs the entire continuum of care when encountering an aggressive patient.
9. Documentation Protocol
Comprehensive documentation protocols are critically important when assessing whether the LEAP (Listen-Empathize-Agree-Partner) technique should be used when a patient initiates aggressive behavior. Accurate and detailed records provide a clear timeline of events, inform subsequent clinical decisions, and offer legal protection to both the patient and the healthcare provider. The existence of well-defined documentation practices directly influences the decision-making process surrounding the use of LEAP and its alternatives.
-
Pre-Incident History
A patient’s past behavior and history of aggression, if properly documented, are critical to determining whether LEAP is an appropriate initial approach. Records should include previous incidents, triggers for aggression, effective de-escalation strategies, and any existing safety plans. For instance, a patient with a history of escalating quickly to violence may require a more direct intervention than LEAP, based on established protocols and past experiences. The absence of readily available pre-incident information can hinder effective risk assessment and potentially lead to inappropriate use of LEAP.
-
Real-Time Assessment and Decision Rationale
Contemporaneous documentation of the immediate assessment of the situation, including the patient’s mental state, environmental factors, and the level of threat, is essential. The rationale for choosing LEAP, or an alternative approach, should be clearly articulated. This documentation provides a record of the factors considered and the decision-making process. An example would be noting that the patient was alert and oriented, exhibiting frustration but not active violence, leading to the decision to attempt LEAP. A lack of clear documentation regarding this assessment can raise questions about the appropriateness of the intervention.
-
LEAP Implementation and Patient Response
Detailed records of the specific steps taken during LEAP implementation and the patient’s response to each step are necessary. This includes documenting the phrases used, the patient’s verbal and non-verbal cues, and any changes in the patient’s behavior. For example, documenting that the patient initially responded positively to empathetic listening but then became more agitated when attempts were made to find areas of agreement. This level of detail allows for an evaluation of LEAP’s effectiveness in real-time and informs decisions about whether to continue with LEAP or transition to an alternative strategy. If documentation is inadequate, it may be difficult to assess the effectiveness of LEAP and justify subsequent interventions.
-
Post-Incident Review and Analysis
A comprehensive post-incident review, including a thorough analysis of the documentation, provides opportunities for learning and improvement. This review should assess the effectiveness of the chosen intervention, identify any factors that contributed to the escalation, and determine whether changes to protocols or staff training are needed. For example, a review of multiple incidents may reveal a pattern of LEAP being ineffective with patients experiencing a specific type of delusion, leading to revisions in the organization’s de-escalation protocols. Insufficient documentation hinders effective post-incident analysis and limits the ability to improve future responses to patient aggression.
The meticulous documentation protocol directly affects the initial question surrounding the LEAP technique. Thorough records ensure that decisions regarding LEAP are informed by evidence, adhere to legal requirements, and prioritize patient and staff safety. A robust documentation system facilitates continuous quality improvement and promotes a more effective and ethical approach to managing patient aggression. The presence of such protocols ensures that subsequent reviews or potential legal inquiries have a clear and unbiased record of the events and reasoning surrounding the use, or lack thereof, of the LEAP technique.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common concerns regarding the application of the LEAP (Listen-Empathize-Agree-Partner) communication technique when managing aggressive patient behavior. The intent is to provide clarification and guidance based on best practices and established principles of patient safety.
Question 1: What constitutes an “attack” in the context of initiating a LEAP response?
The term “attack” encompasses a range of behaviors, from verbal aggression and threats to physical violence. The appropriate response depends on the severity and immediacy of the threat. If the behavior poses an imminent risk to safety, immediate intervention focused on securing the environment and protecting individuals takes precedence over initiating LEAP.
Question 2: When is LEAP definitively not an appropriate initial response to patient aggression?
LEAP is generally not appropriate when the patient is actively engaging in physical violence, wielding a weapon, or exhibiting behavior indicative of a severe mental health crisis that impairs their ability to communicate rationally. Safety protocols and direct intervention become the priority in these situations.
Question 3: How does a patient’s mental state impact the suitability of LEAP?
The patient’s mental state is a critical factor. LEAP requires a certain level of cognitive function and emotional regulation. Patients experiencing acute psychosis, severe intoxication, or significant cognitive impairment may not be able to engage in the reciprocal communication required for LEAP to be effective. Assessment of mental state is crucial.
Question 4: What alternative strategies exist when LEAP proves ineffective or inappropriate?
Alternative strategies include limit-setting, redirection, offering choices, pharmacological interventions, and, as a last resort, physical restraints. The choice depends on the specific circumstances and must adhere to legal and ethical guidelines.
Question 5: What legal considerations are relevant when managing aggressive patient behavior?
Healthcare professionals must comply with relevant legislation, institutional policies, and professional standards of care. This includes understanding the legal basis for involuntary admission, the permissible use of restrictive interventions, and the rights of patients, minimizing potential legal liability.
Question 6: What key elements should be included in documentation of an incident involving patient aggression and the use of de-escalation techniques?
Documentation should include the patient’s history, the immediate assessment of the situation, the rationale for choosing a particular intervention, the specific steps taken, the patient’s response, and any injuries sustained. Comprehensive documentation protects both the patient and the healthcare provider.
The successful application of LEAP, or any de-escalation technique, hinges on careful assessment, appropriate training, and adherence to legal and ethical guidelines. These considerations underscore the complexities of managing aggressive patient behavior within a healthcare setting.
The following section will outline strategies to ensure staff safety when dealing with aggressive patients.
Strategies for Staff Safety When Patient Aggression Arises
Prioritizing staff well-being is paramount when addressing patient aggression. These strategies offer guidance on ensuring a safe environment while considering de-escalation options, including, but not limited to, the LEAP technique.
Tip 1: Maintain Situational Awareness: Continuously assess the environment for potential hazards and escape routes. Being aware of surroundings enables swift action in the event of escalating aggression.
Tip 2: Prioritize Physical Safety: Ensure a safe distance from the patient and position oneself near an exit. Do not allow the patient to block the path to an exit. Physical safety should be the primary concern.
Tip 3: Utilize the Buddy System: When possible, engage with potentially aggressive patients in pairs. The presence of a colleague provides support, witnesses events, and facilitates intervention if necessary.
Tip 4: De-escalate Verbally: Employ a calm, non-threatening tone of voice and maintain a neutral body posture. Speak clearly and avoid confrontational language or gestures. This may involve attempting LEAP if appropriate.
Tip 5: Set Clear Boundaries: Communicate clear, concise limits to the patient’s behavior. For instance, “It is okay to be upset, but it is not okay to yell or threaten others.” Setting boundaries establishes expectations for appropriate conduct.
Tip 6: Know When to Disengage: If de-escalation efforts are ineffective or the patient’s behavior escalates, disengage and seek assistance. Do not jeopardize personal safety in an attempt to resolve the situation alone.
Tip 7: Report Incidents Promptly: Document all incidents of patient aggression, including the specific behaviors exhibited, the interventions attempted, and the outcome. Reporting facilitates data tracking, risk management, and preventative strategies.
Adhering to these safety measures enhances staff protection and contributes to a more secure healthcare environment. Remember, personal safety is paramount when interacting with an aggressive patient.
The following final section will summarize key considerations for managing aggressive patients and offer concluding thoughts.
Conclusion
The preceding exploration of “should I use LEAP when my patient starts attacking me” underscores the complex decision-making involved in managing patient aggression. It highlights the criticality of immediate safety assessments, contextual awareness, an understanding of the patients mental state, the adequacy of staff training, environmental security, LEAP’s suitability within those parameters, available de-escalation alternatives, legal compliance, and meticulous documentation protocols. Employing the LEAP technique necessitates a careful balance between therapeutic communication and proactive safety measures. A one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate; instead, tailored strategies that acknowledge the unique circumstances of each situation are required.
Ultimately, the well-being of both patients and healthcare providers hinges on informed decisions and comprehensive strategies for de-escalation. Continued research, enhanced training, and a commitment to ethical practices are essential to improve the management of aggressive patient behavior and foster safer healthcare environments. The question, “should I use LEAP when my patient starts attacking me,” is not a simple query but rather a gateway to a deeper consideration of responsibilities, limitations, and the overriding imperative to provide compassionate and safe care.
