Post-Seclusion and/or Restraint Review in Psychiatry: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: It has been suggested that after an incident in which a patient has been placed in seclusion or in restraints, an intervention should be conducted after the event to ensure continuity of care and prevent recurrences. Several terms are used, and various models have been suggested for post-seclusion and/or restraint review; however, the intervention has never been precisely defined. OBJECTIVE: This article presents a scoping review on post-seclusion and/or restraint review in psychiatry to examine existing models and the theoretical foundations on which they rely. METHOD: A scoping review of academic articles (CINAHL and Medline database) yielded 28 articles. RESULTS: Post-seclusion and/or restraint review has its origins in the concepts of debriefing in psychology and reflective practice in nursing. We propose a typology in terms of the intervention target, including the patient, the health care providers, or both. IMPLICATIONS: The analysis found that the review ought to involve both the patient and the care providers using an approach that fosters reflexivity among all those involved in order to change the practice of seclusion in psychiatric settings. ACCESSIBLE SUMMARY: • Established literature documented widely that seclusion and restraint has adverse physical and psychological consequences for patient and for health care providers. • Post-seclusion and/or restraint review is promoted in most guidelines, but there is no scoping or systematic review yet on the subject. • The origins of post-seclusion and/or restraint review are in the concepts of debriefing in psychology and reflective practice in nursing. • We propose that post-seclusion and/or restraint review should focus on both patients and health care providers.• Systematic post-seclusion and/or restraint review should be performed after each event, and its effects on patients and on mental health professionals should be rigorously assessed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".