The place of ethics in mental health nurses’ clinical judgment in the use of seclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seclusion is an intervention used in mental health settings, with nurses playing a key role in decisions related to secluding a patient. The purpose of this interpretive description study was to explore the place of ethics in mental health nurses’ clinical judgements on seclusion use. Data collection involved interviews of nine registered psychiatric nurses and eight registered nurses. Nurses described their experiences with seclusion and identified factors that impacted their decision to seclude. Ethical tensions related to seclusion use were outlined. Two themes were identified. The complexity of promoting safety and preventing harm illustrates nurses’ sometimes competing responsibilities to keep people safe, understanding of power differentials and patient vulnerability, and recognition of the various types of harms that can arise with seclusion. The importance of knowing for ethical action with seclusion use highlights the role of knowing oneself, the patient, other team members, and the unit in judgments to seclude.
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 | 0.057 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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".