ArticleThe mental health clinician2025
Implementation of mMINDS monitoring for alcohol withdrawal at an inpatient academic psychiatric facility.
Article in The mental health clinician, 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
Introduction: Patients who abruptly stop the consumption of alcohol are at risk of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Guidelines recommend the use of a validated clinical withdrawal scoring tool to assess the severity of a patient's withdrawal. The modified Minnesota Detoxification Scale (mMINDS) provides detailed definitions to help guide nurses in objectively scoring patients' withdrawal symptoms. Although mMINDS has been validated in a medical intensive care unit, it has not yet been validated in a psychiatric facility. Methods: The primary objective was to determine if using mMINDS was preferred by nurses and increased confidence in assessing AWS compared with the current standard of care in an adult inpatient psychiatric hospital. After 3 months of using mMINDS, nurses were asked to complete a survey to assess their preference and confidence with mMINDS. A retrospective review was also conducted on all patients, 18 years and older, who were monitored for AWS both pre- and post-implementation of mMINDS. Results: Overall, 60% (n = 12) of nurses selected mMINDS as the scoring tool they felt most confident with assessing AWS. Patients in the mMINDS group also received lower cumulative doses of benzodiazepines, although this finding did not reach statistical significance (0.75 mg post-implementation vs. 1.75 mg pre-implementation [ Discussion: The use of mMINDS was preferred by nurses for monitoring AWS in patients hospitalized at an inpatient psychiatric hospital. These results suggest that mMINDS may be an effective tool for monitoring AWS in an inpatient psychiatric setting.
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.