Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869551›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Open Doors by Fair Means: a quasi-experimental controlled study on the effects of an open-door policy on acute psychiatric wards.

Lisa K Schreiber, Florian G Metzger, Erich Flammer, Heike Rinke, Andreas J Fallgatter, Tilman Steinert

Abstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Lisa K SchreiberUniversity Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Tuebingen, Calwerstr. 14, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. lisa.schreiber@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Florian G MetzgerUniversity Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Tuebingen, Calwerstr. 14, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Erich FlammerCenters for Psychiatry Suedwuerttemberg, Ulm University, Weingartshofer Str. 2, 88214, Ravensburg-WeissenauRavensburg, Germany.
Heike RinkeCenters for Psychiatry Suedwuerttemberg, Ulm University, Weingartshofer Str. 2, 88214, Ravensburg-WeissenauRavensburg, Germany.
Andreas J FallgatterUniversity Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Tuebingen, Calwerstr. 14, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Tilman SteinertCenters for Psychiatry Suedwuerttemberg, Ulm University, Weingartshofer Str. 2, 88214, Ravensburg-WeissenauRavensburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychiatric wards treating involuntarily admitted patients are traditionally locked to prevent absconding. However, on the basis of observational evidence, the necessity for locked units in psychiatric hospitals has increasingly been questioned. Updated Mental Health Laws in several Federal States of Germany legitimate involuntary commitment without generally locked doors.

methodsWe examined the effects of an open-door policy in a quasi-experimental, prospective design. For the first time, at each of two locations, two identical wards serving as control and intervention could be compared. After a baseline period of three months, one ward at each location started the 12 month intervention period with the implementation of an open-door policy, while the respective control ward, as before, used open doors only facultatively. Primary outcomes were average opening times of the four wards between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., and the number of involuntary treatment days with the doors open. Secondary outcomes were adverse events including aggressive incidents, absconding, suicide attempts and coercive measures.

resultsOverall, door-opening times increased significantly at both sites´ intervention wards. The number of adverse events did not increase during intervention period. Frequencies of coercive measures decreased in Friedrichshafen and remained unchanged in Tuebingen. In case of the intervention ward in Friedrichshafen, doors were open in up to 91% of all involuntary treatment days, whereas in the control ward, this was only the case in 67% of all involuntary treatment days (p < .001). In case of the intervention ward in Tuebingen, 45% of involuntary treatment days had open doors, compared to 30% in the control ward (p < .001).

conclusionsIt is possible to manage psychiatric wards with open doors without taking inappropriate risks. The extent to which open-door policies are achievable is be dependent on staffing and patient characteristics. Further research is necessary to explore the role of staff attitudes.

trial registrationOur trial "Open Doors by Fair Means" is retrospectively registered with DRKS ( DRKS00015154 ) on Sept. 10

Indexed as

Mental DisordersPsychiatric Department, HospitalCoercionHospitals, PsychiatricHumansPolicyAbscondingCoercive measuresCompulsory treatmentOpen door policyPsychiatryRestraintSafetySuicideWardWard atmosphereWard climate

Identifiers

PMID35869551
PMCPMC9308253

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.