Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical restraints are routinely employed to ensure patient safety in Japanese acute care. Little is known about nursing students' perspectives and how they begin to question their value and knowledge in the face of restraint experiences in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate nursing students' questions about patient restraints and how they understand the ethics of the use of restraints in nursing. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive research using narrative analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Experiential data were generated and thematically analyzed from semi-structured interviews with 16 nursing students who had completed their bachelor's degree program requirements. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study was approved by academic and clinical ethics agencies. Participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Physical restraints were encountered in 16 incidents, 3 with children and 13 with older patients with dementia. Students struggled to comprehend the policies and protocols of restraint use and worried their use was primarily for security rather than therapeutic purposes. Five themes were identified: (1). Questioning the tension between person-centered care, patient autonomy, and restraints, (2). Questioning the nature of restraints in which participants analyzed the policies and protocols around restraint use, (3). Questioning the professional nursing self whereby students reflected on how restraint use challenged their nursing values, and (4). Questioning professional nursing practice, in which students explored how restraints fit within a nursing perspective and positioned themselves as patient advocates. Students encountering physical restraints should ask questions based on values of patient-centeredness, autonomy, and advocacy. There is a need for education that facilitates reflection and questioning so that it informs students' ethical thinking which may enhance nurse advocacy to reduce restraint use. CONCLUSIONS: Restraints provide contexts in which students must face tensions between nursing values and clinical reality. Further research on nursing education strategies within non-psychiatric settings is needed to reduce physical restraints.
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 | 0.038 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".