Views of nursing staff on the use of physical restraint
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A postal questionnaire survey was employed in regional secure and psychiatric intensive care units in England and Wales, in respect of mental health nurses' training in the use of physical restraint. The nurses' views were sought relating to their last experience of implementing the procedure. Whilst most nurses (n = 259, 96.3%) reported positive outcomes in so far that the incident was brought under control, the views of the aftereffects of the procedure were of concern and ambivalence. The literature suggests that service users did not necessarily hold the same positive views. A range of alternatives, which were consistent with the literature, was made by staff to improve intervention in the management of violence. Negative aspects relating to the use of physical restraint were also highlighted. They included procedural, injury, clinical and management issues. Some respondents also expressed concerns about the negative attitudes of their colleagues. The findings of this aspect of the survey highlights that the therapeutic value of physical restraint can only be achieved with appropriate monitoring and with emphasis on psychological intervention in the prevention and management of violence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it