ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2023
Safeguarding patients while implementing mechanical restraints: A qualitative study of nurses and ward staff's perceptions and assessment.
Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Ambulance personnel use of coercion and use of safety belts in Norway.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Humane and Comprehensive Management of Challenging Behaviour in Health and Social Care: Cross-Sectional Study Testing Newly Developed Instrument.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Safeguarding patients while implementing mechanical restraints: A qualitative study of nurses and ward staff's perceptions and assessment.Journal of clinical nursing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesTo explore nurses' and ward staff's perceptions and assessments of patient care while implementing mechanical restraints.
backgroundTo prevent the risks associated with the use of restraints in psychiatry and ensure safe mental health care, it is necessary to know more about how the nursing staff experiences, comprehends and intervenes in managing patients subjected to coercive measures.
designThis study employed a qualitative descriptive design, in accordance with the COREQ guidelines.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 nurses and ward staff aged between 22 and 45 years old, who had experience implementing mechanical restraints. Data were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12.
resultsThe participants believed that mechanical restraints should be used as a last resort and that safeguarding patients during implementation is important; however, their assessments of the patients' physical and mental conditions varied. A clear difference emerged in how management qualified professionals handled situations prior to and during the implementation of mechanical coercive measures.
conclusionsThe findings emphasise the need to focus on the assessment of patients prior to and during restraint, ensure the quality of safe implementation in a risk-of-harm situation, prioritise competence in education, and practice, and improve management. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings highlight the importance of assessing the physical and mental condition of patients while implementing restraints, as well as aiding the management, nurses and ward staff in tailoring safety procedures.
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.