Nursing Practices Recorded in Reports of Episodes of Seclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe the nursing practices recorded in reports of patient episodes of seclusion, with or without restraints, in a specialized psychiatric facility in Quebec. The reports for all adult patients secluded (n = 4863) in a psychiatric unit between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2009, were examined. Descriptive analyses were performed. The main reasons for seclusion were agitation, disorganization, and aggressive behaviour. The alternative methods that were attempted included stimulus reduction, extra medication, and working with the patient to find a solution. Few families were notified about their relation's seclusion. More hours of seclusion were reported in the evening and at night. Our results are comparable to those obtained by other investigators. Some of the variables have not been the subject of much research: for example, health conditions during seclusion with or without restraint and partnerships with family members. Our findings also suggest that, in their analyses, studies should differentiate between cognitive-impairment and adult-psychiatry units as well as long-term seclusion and short-term seclusion. The information reported by the nurse makes no distinction between short-stay and long-stay adult psychiatric units. Only one psychiatric facility was investigated in this study, precluding generalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".