Methods and Strategies for Reducing Seclusion and Restraint in Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Inpatient Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restraints and seclusions are restrictive interventions used in psychiatric inpatient units when there is an imminent risk of harm to the patient or others. Coercive measures are controversial and can lead to negative consequences, including negative emotions, re-traumatization, injuries, or death. The article summarizes the last 10 years of literature regarding methods and strategies used for reducing seclusions and restraints in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient units, and reports on their outcomes. The literature was reviewed by searching PubMed and PsycInfo for English-language articles published between May 2010 and May 2020. Eighteen articles were found that described methods or strategies aimed at reducing restraint or seclusion utilization in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient units. The following interventions were evaluated: Trauma-Informed Care (TIC), Six Core Strategies, Child and Family Centered Care (CFCC), Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS), Strength-Based Care, Modified Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (M-PBIS), Behavioral Modification Program (BMP), Autism Spectrum Disorder Care Pathway (ASD-CP), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), sensory rooms, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Training (MBSR) of staff, and Milieu Nurse-Client Shift Assignments. Most of the interventions reduced the use of seclusions and/or restraints. Two child-centered and trauma-informed initiatives eliminated the use of mechanical restraints. This review shows that the use of coercive measures can be reduced and should be prioritized. Successful implementation requires ongoing commitment on all levels of an organization and a willingness to learn. To facilitate comparisons, future models should evaluate different standardized parameters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".