Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233981›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Design features that reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities: a rapid systematic review.

Sanne Oostermeijer, Catherine Brasier, Carol Harvey, Bridget Hamilton, Cath Roper, Andrew Martel, Justine Fletcher, Lisa Brophy

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Do improved structural surroundings reduce restrictive practices in psychiatry?International journal of mental health systems · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

8 authors.

Sanne OostermeijerMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia sanne.oostermeijer@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6049-6755
Catherine BrasierSocial Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Carol HarveyPsychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Bridget HamiltonCentre for Psychiatric Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Cath RoperCentre for Psychiatric Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew MartelMelbourne School of Design, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Justine FletcherMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lisa BrophySocial Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing efforts are being made to prevent and/or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities. Recent literature recognises the importance of the physical environment in supporting better outcomes in mental health services. This rapid review scoped the existing literature studying what physical design features of mental health facilities can reduce the use of seclusion and physical restraint.

designA rapid review of peer-reviewed literature.

methodsPeer-reviewed literature was searched for studies on architectural design and the use of restraint and seclusion in mental health facilities. The following academic databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Avery for English language literature published between January 2010 and August 2019. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.

resultsWe identified 35 peer-reviewed studies. The findings revealed several overarching themes in design efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint: a beneficial physical environment (eg, access to gardens or recreational facilities); sensory or comfort rooms; and private, uncrowded and calm spaces. The critical appraisal indicated that the overall quality of studies was low, as such the findings should be interpreted with caution.

conclusionThis study found preliminary evidence that the physical environment has a role in supporting the reduction in the use of seclusion and restraint. This is likely to be achieved through a multilayered approach, founded on good design features and building towards specific design features which may reduce occurrences of seclusion and restraint. Future designs should include consumers in a codesign process to maximise the potential for change and innovation that is genuinely guided by the insights of lived experience expertise.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesHospitals, PsychiatricHumansPatient IsolationRestraint, Physicaladult psychiatrymental healthpsychiatryrisk management

Identifiers

PMID34233981
PMCPMC8264870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.