Nurses’ Perceptions of Engaging With Patients to Reduce Restrictive Practices in an Inpatient Psychiatric Unit
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
Despite the evidence of harmful effects of restrictive practices on patients and nurses, restrictive practices are still commonly used in the inpatient psychiatric settings. There has been a paradigm shift of a collaborative approach and implementation of patient engagement to reduce the use of restrictive practices. The purpose of this study was to explore nurses' perceptions of engaging with patients to reduce the use of restrictive practices in an inpatient psychiatric unit. This qualitative-descriptive study was conducted on an inpatient psychiatric unit of a large university hospital in Canada. Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 6 nurses in 2016. Data generated by the interviews were coded and analyzed by thematic analysis. Four major themes emerged from the data analysis: unit engagement practices, managing the escalation by engaging with patient, engaging during the use of restrictive practices, and factors influencing engaging with patient to reduce restrictive practices. It is concluded that nurses perceive engaging with patients as possible and effective to reduce the use of restrictive practices despite identified barriers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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