Putting Restraint on Chemical Restraint: Exploring the Complexity of Acute Inpatient Mental Health Nurses' Experience of Chemical Restraint Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is a growing body of research available on general restraint intervention in acute adult psychiatric settings, relatively little is known about nurses’ experiences of administering chemical restraint. The research question explored in this study was: what are mental health nurses’ experiences of using chemical restraint interventions in times of behavioural emergency on adult inpatient acute mental health units? Through this Canadian study understanding of direct care nurses’ first-hand experiences of the use of chemical restraint interventions was sought. Eight adult acute inpatient mental health nurses were interviewed using hermeneutic phenomenological method. Two major themes that emerged from data analysis are explored to illuminate the existing tension between therapeutic, person-centred care and coercive control to maintain safety: taking control to maintain safety and working within constraints. Integral ways that nurses make meaning from administering chemical restraint were found, as well as some of the complex clinical and ethical decision-making aspects involved in psychiatric nursing care. Implications for practice, education, and policy are discussed. Research findings indicated a need for further focus on medication best practice, policy development and nurse education. These exploratory research findings can be used to both inform and challenge dominant inpatient mental health practice to guide nurses, health care leaders, and policy makers by increased understanding of the complex ethical decision making required for use of chemical restraint interventions.
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 | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".