A pilot study of “post-seclusion and/or restraint review” intervention with patients and staff in a mental health setting
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
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a "post-seclusion and/or restraint review" (PSRR) intervention implemented in an acute psychiatric care unit. DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve staff members and three patients were enrolled in a participatory case study. To evaluate PSRR intervention, qualitative analysis was carried out. Seclusion and restraint use 6 months before and after the PSRR implementation was compared. FINDINGS: Nurses reported that they were able to explore the patient's feelings during the PSRR intervention with patients, which led to restoration of the therapeutic relationship. PSRR with the treatment team was perceived as a learning opportunity, which allowed to improve the therapeutic intervention. Both the use of seclusion and the time spent in seclusion were significantly reduced 6 months after the implementation of PSRR intervention. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Our results suggest the efficacy of PSRR in overcoming the discomfort perceived by both staff and patient and, in the meantime, in reducing the need for coercive procedures. Systematic PSRR could permit to improve the quality of care and the safety of aggressiveness management.
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