Psychiatric nurses’ thoughts and feelings about restraint use: a decision dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients continue to be physically restrained in psychiatric in-patient units. Studies concerned with staff-related variables have suggested that the emotional reactions of professionals to violent or potentially violent patients may influence their use of restrictive measures. However, no research existed that described psychiatric nurses' thoughts and feelings while they were involved in restraint situations nor what effects their thoughts and feelings had on their decision to restrain. Therefore, an ethnographic qualitative study was conducted in order to describe systematically nurses' thoughts and feelings toward restraint use in the in-patient psychiatric setting. The conceptual approach guiding the study was Etzioni's (1992) theoretical work on the role of normative-affective factors in decision making. Following ethical approval of the study, ethnographic interviews were conducted with six nurses from an in-patient psychiatric unit who had participated in a situation involving the physical restraint of a patient. The analysis of the nurses' thoughts and feelings revealed that the restraint situation represented a decision dilemma for them. This overall finding was supported by four themes: (1) the framing of the situation: the potential for imminent harm; (2) the unsuccessful search for alternatives to physical restraints; (3) the conflicted nurse; and (4) the contextual conditions of restraint. The results indicated that restraint use is more complex than is currently conveyed in the literature in that normative-affective factors influenced nurses' restraint decisions. The findings advance our understanding of why restraints continue to be used in psychiatric units. Further research is necessary to examine the findings in other settings and with a larger and more diverse population in order to draw definitive conclusions about the continued use of physical restraints in the care of patients on psychiatric units in hospitals.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".