MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261457205 · doi:10.1111/jpm.12285

An integrative review exploring decision‐making factors influencing mental health nurses in the use of restraint

2016· review· en· W2261457205 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MantraPerceptionPsychologyControl (management)MedicineNursingApplied psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: There is emerging evidence highlighting the counter therapeutic impact of the use of restraint and promoting the minimization of this practice in mental health care. Mental health nurses are often the professional group using restraint and understanding factors influencing their decision-making becomes critical. To date, there are no other published papers that have undertaken a similar broad search to review this topic. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: Eight emerging themes are identified as factors influencing mental health nurses decisions-making in the use of restraint. The themes are: 'safety for all', 'restraint as a necessary intervention', 'restraint as a last resort', 'role conflict', 'maintaining control', 'staff composition', 'knowledge and perception of patient behaviours', and 'psychological impact'. 'Last resort' appears to be the mantra of acceptable restraint use, although, to date, there are no studies that specifically consider what this concept actually is. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: These findings should be considered in the evaluation of the use of restraint in mental health settings and appropriate strategies placed to support shifting towards restraint minimization. As the concept of 'last resort' is mentioned in many policies and guidelines internationally with no published understanding of what this means, research should prioritize this as a critical next step in restraint minimization efforts. INTRODUCTION: While mechanical and manual restraint as an institutional method of control within mental health settings may be perceived to seem necessary at times, there is emergent literature highlighting the potential counter-therapeutic impact of this practice for patients as well as staff. Nurses are the professional group who are most likely to use mechanical and manual restraint methods within mental health settings. In-depth insights to understand what factors influence nurses' decision-making related to restraint use are therefore warranted. AIM: To explore what influences mental health nurses' decision-making in the use of restraint. METHOD: An integrative review using Cooper's framework was undertaken. RESULTS: Eight emerging themes were identified: 'safety for all', 'restraint as a necessary intervention', 'restraint as a last resort', 'role conflict', 'maintaining control', 'staff composition', 'knowledge and perception of patient behaviours', and 'psychological impact'. These themes highlight how mental health nurses' decision-making is influenced by ethical and safety responsibilities, as well as, interpersonal and staff-related factors. CONCLUSION: Research to further understand the experience and actualization of 'last resort' in the use of restraint and to provide strategies to prevent restraint use in mental health settings are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it