Effect of Door-Locking Policy on Inpatient Treatment of Substance Use and Dual Disorders
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
OBJECTIVE: Substance use treatment is often performed inside locked wards. We investigate the effects of adopting a policy of open-door treatment for a substance use treatment and dual diagnosis ward. METHODS: This is a prospective open-label study investigating 3-month study periods before opening (P1), immediately after (P2), and 1 year after the first period (P3). Data on committed patients, coercion (seclusion, forced medication, absconding events with subsequent police search), violence, and substance use was collected daily. We applied generalised estimating equation models. RESULTS: The mean daily number of patients with ongoing commitment changed from 2.64 (P1) to 2.12 (P2) to 0.96 (P3), corresponding to a reduction of relative risk (RR) for having an ongoing commitment by 20% in P2 (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.98) and 67% in P3 (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.25-0.42). The mean daily number of coercive events was 0.29, 0.13, and 0.05, corresponding to a risk for undergoing coercive measures reduced by 56% (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22-0.90) and 85% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05-0.45). Substance use, violence or ward atmosphere did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support findings from general psychiatric wards of reduced coercion after adopting a primarily open-door policy. However, coercive events were rare during all periods. The widespread practice of restricting the freedom of inpatients with substance use disorders by locking ward doors is highly questionable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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