The positive predictive value of acute myocardial infarction and related procedure coding is comparable to or better than previously reported observations of administrative databases.
Accessible summaryIn the previous paper we described a model explaining differences in rates of conflict and containment between wards, grouping causal factors into six domains: the staff team, the physical environment, outside hospital, the patient community, patient characteristics and the regulatory framework.This paper reviews and evaluates the evidence for the model from previously published research.The model is supported, but the evidence is not very strong. More research using more rigorous methods is required in order to confirm or improve this model.AbstractIn a previous paper, we described a proposed model explaining differences in rates of conflict (aggression, absconding, self-harm, etc.) and containment (seclusion, special observation, manual restraint, etc.). The Safewards Model identified six originating domains as sources of conflict and containment: the patient community, patient characteristics, the regulatory framework, the staff team, the physical environment, and outside hospital. In this paper, we assemble the evidence underpinning the inclusion of these six domains, drawing upon a wide ranging review of the literature across all conflict and containment items; our own programme of research; and reasoned thinking. There is good evidence that the six domains are important in conflict and containment generation. Specific claims about single items within those domains are more difficult to support with convincing evidence, although the weight of evidence does vary between items and between different types of conflict behaviour or containment method. The Safewards Model is supported by the evidence, but that evidence is not particularly strong. There is a dearth of rigorous outcome studies and trials in this area, and an excess of descriptive studies. The model allows the generation of a number of different interventions in order to reduce rates of conflict and containment, and properly conducted trials are now needed to test its validity.
A postal questionnaire survey was employed in regional secure and psychiatric intensive care units in England and Wales, in respect of mental health nurses' training in the use of physical restraint. The nurses' views were sought relating to their last experience of implementing the procedure. Whilst most nurses (n = 259, 96.3%) reported positive outcomes in so far that the incident was brought under control, the views of the aftereffects of the procedure were of concern and ambivalence. The literature suggests that service users did not necessarily hold the same positive views. A range of alternatives, which were consistent with the literature, was made by staff to improve intervention in the management of violence. Negative aspects relating to the use of physical restraint were also highlighted. They included procedural, injury, clinical and management issues. Some respondents also expressed concerns about the negative attitudes of their colleagues. The findings of this aspect of the survey highlights that the therapeutic value of physical restraint can only be achieved with appropriate monitoring and with emphasis on psychological intervention in the prevention and management of violence.
These findings suggest that rural access to federally funded health care is restricted relative to urban access. Older veterans may choose different systems of care for different health care services. With poor access to primary care, rural veterans may substitute emergency room visits for routine care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.