ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating the Safe Steps for De-escalation: A protocol for a mixed concurrent control study in acute mental health units.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a shared goal of organising reform efforts in mental health services to eliminate restrictive practices and improve therapeutic relationships. However, evidence on high-quality, culturally safe, co-produced, and strengths-based interventions and evaluations is limited, especially for complex interventions centred on therapeutic responding. In response, a multi-centre, mixed concurrent control study is underway to evaluate the Safe Steps for De-escalation, a multi-component intervention focused on a structured framework for mental health nurses' therapeutic responses to emotional distress and interpersonal conflict in acute adult mental health inpatient units. The aims of this evaluation were: 1) What is the effectiveness of Safe Steps in reducing restrictive practice events and duration and physical injuries? 2) Does Safe Steps improve people's service experience, perceived staff action towards violence prevention, and nurses' professional quality of life and emotionally intelligent workplace behaviours? 3) What factors influence the successful implementation of Safe Steps? It is hypothesised that: a) intervention sites will demonstrate more significant decreases in restrictive practice events and duration and physical injuries, compared to within-group baseline and control group, and b) measures of people's experiences and perceptions and nurses' outcomes and behaviours will improve, compared to within-group baseline. Safe Steps has three components: i) a structured de-escalation framework, ii) an in-person and online training programme, and iii) a regular conduct of strengths-based, data-informed restrictive practice review meetings. The control group will be usual care. Other outcomes include nursing intervention clusters, their associations with various outcomes, and factors influencing intervention implementation and restrictive practice use. There is no randomisation, but inverse probability weighting will be applied. The sample sizes were determined through power analyses and supporting evidence on saturation in qualitative research. Various quantitative and qualitative data treatments and measures will be undertaken to minimise research biases.
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.