ArticleBMJ open2024
'We are not trained to do clinical work': security staff providing physical restraint for NGT feeding in English paediatric wards-a qualitative multi-informant study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical guidance for the use of nasogastric tube feeding under restraint in eating disorders care: a systematic scoping review.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Review
- Updated Dietetic Prescribing Guidelines When Naso-Gastric Tube Feeding Under Physical Restraint Is Required: A Modified Nominal Group Technique Study.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo gain insights into the experience, and impact, of using security staff to facilitate physical restraints for nasogastric tube feeding.
designA cross-sectional design using 39 individual interviews, three online focus groups and three written submissions involving young people with lived experience (PWLE), parents/carers, paediatric staff and security staff involved in nasogastric feeding under restraint in paediatric settings in England. Qualitative semistructured interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed.
participants53 individuals participated: seven security staff (all men); nine PWLE who experienced the intervention between the ages of 9 and 17 (all female); 20 parents (15 mothers, 5 fathers) and 20 paediatric staff (5 men, 15 women).
resultsRegarding the involvement of security staff, participants spoke in relation to two primary themes (1) short-term impact and (2) long-term impact. Short-term themes included that the intervention felt inappropriate and traumatic while also recognising its lifesaving nature and the fact that involving security guards preserved positive relationships with nursing staff. Longer-term themes included the development of trauma symptoms, while also acknowledging the skill development and improved professional relationships that could result from delivering the intervention.
conclusionsThis lifesaving clinical intervention can negatively impact security staff as much as the patient, parents/carers and paediatric staff. A prebrief and debrief should be seen as part of the 'process'. Further research is needed to better understand what else can mitigate negative impacts.
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.