住院治疗中心住院工作者采取约束隔离措施的原因探析:官方报告的定性分析

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Steve Geoffrion, Josianne Lamothe, C. Drolet, S. Dufour, Amélie Couvrette
{"title":"住院治疗中心住院工作者采取约束隔离措施的原因探析:官方报告的定性分析","authors":"Steve Geoffrion, Josianne Lamothe, C. Drolet, S. Dufour, Amélie Couvrette","doi":"10.1080/0886571X.2021.1973940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In situations where the immediate safety of children or others is at risk, residential workers are authorized to use specific measures intended as last resort, namely restraint and seclusion (R&S). This study sought to identify and detail the reasons invoked by residential workers when justifying their decision to restrain or seclude a child. Researchers reviewed and coded 628 anonymized official R&S reports written by residential workers from two different residential treatment centers over the 14 months between September 2015 and May 2017. Researchers used qualitative thematic analysis to analyze official reports. Researchers found nine reasons invoked by residential workers that they regrouped into four themes as follows: workers justified their use of R&S based on their own perceptions of 1) the danger associated with children’s affects and behaviors; 2) their obligation to yield to external constraints; 3) the benefits associated with R&S for children, and 4) the demands imposed by their professional culture. Researchers found that the reasons invoked in official reports by residential workers to justify their decisions are not always consistent with R&S as being methods of last resort. Specifically, residential workers appear to be missing the training and organizational resources needed to use alternative forms of intervention.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Reasons Motivating the Use of Restraint and Seclusion by Residential Workers in Residential Treatment Centers: A Qualitative Analysis of Official Reports\",\"authors\":\"Steve Geoffrion, Josianne Lamothe, C. Drolet, S. Dufour, Amélie Couvrette\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0886571X.2021.1973940\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In situations where the immediate safety of children or others is at risk, residential workers are authorized to use specific measures intended as last resort, namely restraint and seclusion (R&S). This study sought to identify and detail the reasons invoked by residential workers when justifying their decision to restrain or seclude a child. Researchers reviewed and coded 628 anonymized official R&S reports written by residential workers from two different residential treatment centers over the 14 months between September 2015 and May 2017. Researchers used qualitative thematic analysis to analyze official reports. Researchers found nine reasons invoked by residential workers that they regrouped into four themes as follows: workers justified their use of R&S based on their own perceptions of 1) the danger associated with children’s affects and behaviors; 2) their obligation to yield to external constraints; 3) the benefits associated with R&S for children, and 4) the demands imposed by their professional culture. Researchers found that the reasons invoked in official reports by residential workers to justify their decisions are not always consistent with R&S as being methods of last resort. Specifically, residential workers appear to be missing the training and organizational resources needed to use alternative forms of intervention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2021.1973940\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2021.1973940","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在儿童或其他人的直接安全受到威胁的情况下,居住工人被授权使用特定的措施作为最后的手段,即约束和隔离(R&S)。本研究旨在确定和详细说明住宿工作者在决定约束或隔离儿童时所援引的原因。研究人员审查并编码了628份匿名的官方R&S报告,这些报告是由来自两个不同的住院治疗中心的住院工人在2015年9月至2017年5月的14个月内撰写的。研究人员使用定性专题分析来分析官方报告。研究人员发现了9个住宿工人援引的原因,他们将其重新归类为四个主题:工人根据自己的看法来证明他们使用R&S的合理性1)与儿童的影响和行为相关的危险;2)服从外部约束的义务;3)与儿童R&S相关的好处,以及4)他们的职业文化所施加的要求。研究人员发现,住家工人在官方报告中为自己的决定辩护的理由,并不总是与R&S作为最后手段的做法一致。具体而言,住宿工作者似乎缺少使用替代干预形式所需的培训和组织资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Reasons Motivating the Use of Restraint and Seclusion by Residential Workers in Residential Treatment Centers: A Qualitative Analysis of Official Reports
ABSTRACT In situations where the immediate safety of children or others is at risk, residential workers are authorized to use specific measures intended as last resort, namely restraint and seclusion (R&S). This study sought to identify and detail the reasons invoked by residential workers when justifying their decision to restrain or seclude a child. Researchers reviewed and coded 628 anonymized official R&S reports written by residential workers from two different residential treatment centers over the 14 months between September 2015 and May 2017. Researchers used qualitative thematic analysis to analyze official reports. Researchers found nine reasons invoked by residential workers that they regrouped into four themes as follows: workers justified their use of R&S based on their own perceptions of 1) the danger associated with children’s affects and behaviors; 2) their obligation to yield to external constraints; 3) the benefits associated with R&S for children, and 4) the demands imposed by their professional culture. Researchers found that the reasons invoked in official reports by residential workers to justify their decisions are not always consistent with R&S as being methods of last resort. Specifically, residential workers appear to be missing the training and organizational resources needed to use alternative forms of intervention.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信