ArticleBMC psychiatry2018
Requirements for the implementation of open door policies in acute psychiatry from a mental health professionals' and patients' view: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users' and carers' experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update.BMC psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- [Open doors in psychiatric hospitals : An overview of empirical findings].Der Nervenarzt · 2019Pooled it
- Patient experiences of coercion in mental healthcare: systematic review and metasummary of qualitative studies from 1991 to 2025.BJPsych open · 2026Review
- Patient journey mapping in an open-door psychiatric inpatient unit.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- RutiSafeNet: a behavioral risk and nursing workload monitoring tool for open-door acute inpatient mental health units.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives on Open-Door Policies in Psychiatry: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Coercive Measures in Psychiatry Can Hardly Be Justified in Principle Any Longer-Ethico-Legal Requirements Versus Empirical Research Data and Conceptual Issues.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2025Review
- Open Doors by Fair Means: a quasi-experimental controlled study on the effects of an open-door policy on acute psychiatric wards.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- 2022: IS IT TIME TO OPEN THE DOORS IN THE ACUTE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALISATION?Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2022Article
- Rules and ward climate in acute psychiatric setting: Comparison of staff and patient perceptions.International journal of mental health nursing · 2022Observational
- Article
- Containment and therapeutic relationships in acute psychiatric care spaces: the symbolic dimensions of doors.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Opportunities, risks and challenges in global mental health and population neuroscience: a case of Sino-German cooperation.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2021Review
- Comprehensive Treatment Module for Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms - A Guide for General Practitioners.Cureus · 2021Article
- [Open-door psychiatry and community mental health work].Der Nervenarzt · 2019Review
- [What replaces the locked door? : Conceptual and ethical considerations regarding open door policies, formal coercion and treatment pressures].Der Nervenarzt · 2019Review
- Ward Atmosphere and Patient Satisfaction in Psychiatric Hospitals With Different Ward Settings and Door Policies. Results From a Mixed Methods Study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreating legally committed patients on open, instead of locked wards is controversially discussed and the affected stakeholders (patients, mental health professionals) have ambiguous views on the benefits and disadvantages. The study aims to assess the opinions and values of relevant stakeholders with regard to the requirements for implementing open wards in psychiatric hospitals.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 psychiatrists, 15 psychiatric nurses and 15 patients, and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe interviewees identified conceptual, personnel and spatial requirements necessary for an open door policy. Observation and door watch concepts are judged to be essential for open wards, and patients appreciate the therapeutic value they hold. However, nurses find the door watch problematic. All groups suggest seclusion or small locked divisions as a possible way of handling agitated patients. All stakeholders agree that such concepts can only succeed if sufficient, qualified staff is available. They also agree that freedom of movement is a key element in the management of acutely ill patients, which can be achieved with an open door policy. Finally, the interviewees suggested removing the door from direct view to prevent absconding.
conclusionsFor psychiatric institutions seeking to implement (partially) open wards, the present results may have high practical relevance. The stakeholders' suggestions also illustrate that fundamental clinical changes depend on resource investments which - at least at a certain point - might not be feasible for individual psychiatric institutions but presumably require initiatives on the level of mental health care providers or policy makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.