Observational studyDer Nervenarzt2019
[Six years of open-door policy at the University Psychiatric Hospital Basel].
Observational study in Der Nervenarzt, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- RutiSafeNet: a behavioral risk and nursing workload monitoring tool for open-door acute inpatient mental health units.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Behind closed doors: unlocking hospital variations in the use of seclusion and mechanical restraint - a nationwide multilevel analysis in adult mental healthcare in France.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on Open-Door Policies in Psychiatry: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- General and Case-Specific Approval of Coercion in Psychiatry in the Public Opinion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The association between the admission to wards with open- vs. closed-door policy and the use of coercive measures.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Article
- Opening the Doors of a Substance Use Disorder Ward-Benefits and Challenges From a Consumer Perspective.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Compulsory Admission to Psychiatric Wards-Who Is Admitted, and Who Appeals Against Admission?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- Reliability of Paper-Based Routine Documentation in Psychiatric Inpatient Care and Recommendations for Further Improvement.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoercive measures in psychiatry have well-known negative consequences for the patients and their treatment. They are considered ethically problematic and must only be used as a last resort. Locked wards may promote a threatening atmosphere leading to more aggression and a subsequent higher use of coercive measures. The aim of this was to investigate the frequency of seclusion and forced medication during clinic-wide implementation of an open-door policy. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this 6‑year longitudinal observational study (2010-2015) the frequencies of seclusion and forced medication were investigated on the basis of 17,359 cases treated in the University Psychiatric Hospital Basel. During the observational period, six formerly permanently locked wards were opened.
resultsThe examined data showed a clinically relevant decrease in the frequency of seclusion (from 8.2% to 3.5%) and forced medication (from 2.4% to 1.2%) during the observational period.
conclusionThese results underline the potential of a less restrictive policy in psychiatry to reduce the frequency of coercive measures.
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.