ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Psychiatrists' experiences with the implementation of safewards and other quality improvement work: an explorative, qualitative interview study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundRestrictive practices, such as seclusion and restraint, in psychiatric inpatient settings carry significant risks of harm and raise critical ethical concerns, which has prompted efforts to minimize their use. Models like Safewards, with its ten interventions, have shown promise in reducing conflict and containment but require active engagement from all healthcare professionals. Despite their leadership roles, psychiatrists' engagement in implementing Safewards remains underexplored, even though their involvement is likely critical for the model's success. This study aimed to identify key facilitators and barriers to psychiatrists' engagement in implementing Safewards and other quality improvement work.
methodsIn this qualitative exploratory study, semi-structured interviews and inductive content analysis were utilized. Ten psychiatrists from nine psychiatric clinics in Sweden, providing both voluntary and involuntary care and implementing Safewards to varying extents, were recruited via convenience sampling. Participants, equally distributed by gender, had an average of 12 years of experience in their roles. Interviews were conducted in person or digitally, lasting 30-90 min, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, with coding and categorization conducted collaboratively to ensure consistency. Reflexive practice and the COREQ checklist were applied to enhance trustworthiness.
resultsPsychiatrists' engagement in Safewards and quality improvement efforts was influenced by factors tied to their professional role and the clinical work environment. Positive influences included leadership aspects, professional training, and visible benefits for patient care, such as improved communication with patients and staff. Barriers included a narrow care perspective, feelings of detachment from holistic patient care, and the unpredictable nature of psychiatrists' work. Time allocation, prioritization, and support from local management also played crucial roles in shaping engagement.
conclusionsThis study identifies key facilitators and barriers to psychiatrists' engagement in implementing Safewards, offering guidance for enhancing their participation. Strengthening leadership, broadening perspectives, and ensuring protected time for quality improvement initiatives may optimize multidisciplinary collaboration. Future research should examine whether increased psychiatrist participation positively affects Safewards outcomes.
trial registrationClinical trial number: not applicable.
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.