Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: This study explored psychiatric inpatients' experiences of, and their suggestions for, improvement of seclusion/restraint, and alternatives to their use in Finland. METHODS: The data were collected by focused interviews (n= 30) and were analyzed with inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Patients' perspectives received insufficient attention during seclusion/restraint processes. Improvements (e.g., humane treatment) and alternatives (e.g., empathetic patient-staff interaction) to seclusion/restraint, as suggested by the patients, focused on essential parts of nursing practice but have not been largely adopted. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients' basic needs have to be met, and patient-staff interaction has to also continue during seclusion/restraint. Providing patients with meaningful activities, planning beforehand, documenting the patients' wishes, and making patient-staff agreements reduce the need for restrictions and offer alternatives for seclusion/restraint. Service users must be involved in all practical development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kontio et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: