ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2025
Outcomes of Restrictive Practice Review Meetings in an Acute Mental Health Unit: A Retrospective Before-and-After Study.
Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives and Experiences of People Receiving Care on a De-escalation Intervention to Reduce Restrictive Practices in Acute Mental Health Units.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- From Control to Connection: Reflections on Implementing Safe Steps in Acute Mental Health Units.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Perspectives and Experiences of Nurses Implementing the Safe Steps for De-Escalation in Acute Mental Health Units.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Functional, Contextual, and Interventional Drivers of Formal Coercion in Acute Mental Health Units: A Feature Analysis.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Safe Steps for De-escalation: A protocol for a mixed concurrent control study in acute mental health units.PloS one · 2025Article
- Maximising relational capabilities and minimising restrictive practices in acute mental health units: the Safe Steps for De-escalation evaluation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A structured process of reviewing incidents of seclusion and physical restraint supports nurses in managing the emotional and relational impact of restrictive practices. However, these reviews are not a routine feature of everyday acute care provision, and have historically been influenced by practices that reflect a managerial or disciplinary focus. A retrospective before-and-after study was conducted in an adult acute mental health inpatient unit in regional New South Wales, Australia. The goal was to determine the impact of strengths-based restrictive practice review meetings from January 2019 to March 2020, with an equivalent timeframe before its implementation (October 2017-December 2018). The events of seclusion, physical restraint, and Code Blacks (emergency codes requiring security personnel in response to personal safety threats) were compared before and after the implementation of review meetings, with covariate balancing applied to enhance comparability. The reduction in the rate of seclusion was statistically significant post-implementation (incidence rate ratios [IRR] = 0.37, 95% CI [0.24, 0.57], p < 0.001). At the same time, physical restraint showed a statistically insignificant reduction (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.53, 1.09], p = 0.14). Code Black incidents remained stable (IRR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.70, 1.49], p = 0.91). These mixed results indicate that strengths-based reviews play a role in reducing coercion, although additional strategies may be needed to achieve significant reductions in restrictive practice outcomes. Intervention development requires broader service-level changes, with open and robust evaluations that enhance accountability and capture key influencing factors.
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.