Intervening against the patient’s wishes: pro re nata medication and the phenomenological experience of nurses working in a forensic psychiatry environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forensic psychiatry environments, nurses are regularly confronted with the use of restrictive measures such as chemical restraints and are forced to constantly navigate between care and social control. The debate over the ethics of coercion and the use of control measures for violence in psychiatric settings is far from resolved. The objective of this study is to understand the ethical experience of nurses in a Canadian forensic psychiatry environment when administering PRN (when required) medication against the patient's will. The experiences of 14 nurses are analyzed from a critical ethical perspective through interpretive phenomenological analysis. Across the three main categories-certainties, paradoxes, and learning-the results show that nurses must simultaneously commit their allegiance to the patient, to the justice system, and to the culture of the "total" institution. These multiple allegiances generate paradoxes that affect the way nurses actualize their professional role.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".