ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2026
Using a short-term risk assessment and compassion focused staff support groups to reduce restrictive intervention use in a secure mental health service.
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026. 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.
- Using a short-term risk assessment and compassion focused staff support groups to reduce restrictive intervention use in a secure mental health service.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
- Manufacturing aFrontiers 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the current study was to introduce two interventions to reduce restrictive practice use in a UK-based secure mental health service. The interventions were a short-term risk assessment called the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA), and staff support groups based on the Compassion Focused Therapy model (CFSS groups). Intervention selection was guided by a recently published, trauma-informed model of restrictive practice use, the Maintenance Model of Restrictive Practices.
methodsFive secure mental health wards were included in the study and restrictive practices were compared pre and post intervention for each ward. Owing to limitations in the available data, we were limited in the research design and analyses that could be used. Descriptive statistics were used to compare restraint frequency and short-, medium- and long-duration seclusion episodes pre and post intervention, per ward.
resultsDASA was associated with some reductions in restrictive intervention use on some wards, but this was inconsistent. Similarly, CFSS groups were associated with some limited reductions in restrictive intervention use, but this was again inconsistent. When the DASA was introduced in addition to CFSS groups, reductions in physical restraints and medium and long-duration seclusion episodes were observed.
conclusionsShort-term risk assessment and compassion focused staff groups were associated with reductions in restrictive practice use across some secure mental health wards, but this was inconsistent. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has addressed staff emotional wellbeing in an attempt to reduce restrictive practice use. The findings provide some tentative support for the Maintenance Model of Restrictive Practices.
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.