Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31014331›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Post-incident review after restraint in mental health care -a potential for knowledge development, recovery promotion and restraint prevention. A scoping review.

Unn Elisabeth Hammervold, Reidun Norvoll, Randi W Aas, Hildegunn Sagvaag

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effect of standardized post-coercion review on subjective coercion: Results of a randomized-controlled trial.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Patient Safety and Mental Health-A Growing Quality Gap in Canada.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Enhancing psychological safety in mental health services.International journal of mental health systems · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Unn Elisabeth HammervoldDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, NO-4036, Stavanger, Norway. unn.hammervold@uis.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5622-1713
Reidun NorvollWork Research Institute, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Randi W AasDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, NO-4036, Stavanger, Norway.
Hildegunn SagvaagDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stavanger, NO-4036, Stavanger, Norway.
University of Stavanger · NOOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of physical restraint is a common practice in mental healthcare, but is controversial due to risk of physical and psychological harm to patients and creating ethical dilemmas for care providers. Post-incident review (PIR), that involve patient and care providers after restraints, have been deployed to prevent harm and to reduce restraint use. However, this intervention has an unclear scientific knowledge base. Thus, the aim of this scoping review was to explore the current knowledge of PIR and to assess to what extent PIR can minimize restraint-related use and harm, support care providers in handling professional and ethical dilemmas, and improve the quality of care in mental healthcare.

methodsSystematic searches in the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science databases were carried out. The search terms were derived from the population, intervention and settings.

resultsTwelve studies were included, six quantitative, four qualitative and two mixed methods. The studies were from Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada and United States. The studies' design and quality varied, and PIR s' were conducted differently. Five studies explored PIR s' as a separate intervention after restraint use, in the other studies, PIR s' were described as one of several components in restraint reduction programs. Outcomes seemed promising, but no significant outcome were related to using PIR alone. Patients and care providers reported PIR to: 1) be an opportunity to review restraint events, they would not have had otherwise, and 2) promote patients' personal recovery processes, and 3) stimulate professional reflection on organizational development and care.

conclusionScientific literature directly addressing PIR s' after restraint use is lacking. However, results indicate that PIR may contribute to more professional and ethical practice regarding restraint promotion and the way restraint is executed. The practice of PIR varied, so a specific manual cannot be recommended. More research on PIR use and consequences is needed, especially PIR's potential to contribute to restraint prevention in mental healthcare.

Indexed as

Restraint, PhysicalCanadaDelivery of Health CareHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMental DisordersMental Health ServicesPopulation GroupsProfessional-Patient RelationsSwedenUnited KingdomUnited StatesDebriefingMentalPost-incident reviewRecovery-oriented careReflectionRestraint reductionRestraints

Identifiers

PMID31014331
PMCPMC6480590
OpenAlexW2943729514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.