Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40897463›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

Restraint reduction during psychiatric intensive care: a controlled bi-phasic time series evaluation of a culture change intervention.

Eleanor Green, Stephen Kellett, Chris Gaskell, Martin Hobbs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eleanor GreenThe University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK eleanor.green16@nhs.net.ORCID 0009-0002-6652-3931
Stephen KellettRotherham Doncaster and South Humber Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Doncaster, Doncaster, UK.ORCID 0009-0005-8424-4874
Chris GaskellThe University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7589-5246
Martin HobbsSheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRestrictive practices (ie, physical restraint, rapid tranquilisation and seclusion) are used to manage risk of harm to self and/or others during inpatient psychiatric admissions. Restrictive practices can be physically and psychologically hazardous for both patients and staff, but there have been few well-controlled evaluations of interventions to reduce restrictive practices.

objectiveTo conduct a controlled evaluation of the implementation of a culture change intervention on a psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU) compared with a control PICU on use of restraint.

methodsA new staff role was created on the intervention PICU (ie, the

resultsOn the intervention PICU, there were significant reductions in the use of seclusion, full restraint and use of standing holds. Qualitatively, positive changes to the safety culture of the intervention PICU were reported, and these were consistently rated as important, impactful and unlikely without the RRIA role.

conclusionsPICU safety culture can improve when specific roles focused on changing ward practices around restraints are implemented. More controlled evaluations of reducing restraint interventions on PICUs are needed.

Indexed as

Critical CareRestraint, PhysicalAdultFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleOrganizational CultureQualitative ResearchHealthcare quality improvementIncident reportingPatient-centred carePatient safetySafety culture

Identifiers

PMID40897463
PMCPMC12406904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.