Reducing Restrictive Interventions in Inpatient Mental Healthcare Facilities: A Literature Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: One common characteristic of mental health facilities is the violence and aggression that most patients exhibit. Such characteristics threaten the safety of the patients as well as that of the healthcare providers. Interventions have been put in place to prevent such aggression among mental patients. One of the common interventions is physical or chemical restriction. However, such interventions not only violate the dignity of the patients but also have negative repercussions on the treatment process and recidivism among the patients. Purpose: This study aimed to identify methods and models that would reduce the need for restrictive interventions to challenging behavior by mentally ill patients in inpatient psychiatric healthcare facilities. METHODS: The researcher examined databases that had information concerning mental health. These included CINAHL, PSYCINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar. The quality appraisal used in the Cochrane Library database encompasses several systematic reviews that have been published. The data analysis that was used in this research was based on the findings of other researchers' content analysis and was an excellent technique in the research methodology. RESULTS: The researcher employed the inclusion criteria from the previous chapter and identified 108 studies. The author applied qualitative research synthesis to analyze the literature and extract data for interpretation in the study. The majority of the studies used qualitative methodologies. The CASP tool was indispensable in appraising every study considered in the paper. Several health services have committed to the substantial reduction or elimination of the use of restrictive interventions. Restrictive practices can be reduced and often eliminated in healthcare services. The weight of evidence that seclusion and restraint can be reduced and eliminated comes from reports of these outcomes being achieved in mental health services. There is also evidence of seclusion and restraint being reduced in emergency departments and disability services. CONCLUSION: Mental healthcare providers might argue that using restrictive interventions within the context of the medical care environment presents an excellent way of dealing with aggressive and violent people. Researchers in the future need to use actual test subjects. They need to conduct clinical trials to ensure that they can validate the results of the current study. RECOMMENDATIONS: Intervention development should be theoretically informed and be conducted in collaboration with people who have lived experience of this issue. Limit setting may be effective for preventing and managing aggression. Observation is potentially a powerful strategy for preventing and managing aggression.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».