You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Requirements for the implementation of open door policies in acute psychiatry from a mental health professionals’ and patients’ view: a qualitative interview study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-018-1866-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Kalagi, I. Otte, J. Vollmann, G. Juckel, J. Gather |
| Abstract |
Treating legally committed patients on open, instead of locked wards is controversially discussed and the affected stakeholders (patients, mental health professionals) have ambiguous views on the benefits and disadvantages. The study aims to assess the opinions and values of relevant stakeholders with regard to the requirements for implementing open wards in psychiatric hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 psychiatrists, 15 psychiatric nurses and 15 patients, and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The interviewees identified conceptual, personnel and spatial requirements necessary for an open door policy. Observation and door watch concepts are judged to be essential for open wards, and patients appreciate the therapeutic value they hold. However, nurses find the door watch problematic. All groups suggest seclusion or small locked divisions as a possible way of handling agitated patients. All stakeholders agree that such concepts can only succeed if sufficient, qualified staff is available. They also agree that freedom of movement is a key element in the management of acutely ill patients, which can be achieved with an open door policy. Finally, the interviewees suggested removing the door from direct view to prevent absconding. For psychiatric institutions seeking to implement (partially) open wards, the present results may have high practical relevance. The stakeholders' suggestions also illustrate that fundamental clinical changes depend on resource investments which - at least at a certain point - might not be feasible for individual psychiatric institutions but presumably require initiatives on the level of mental health care providers or policy makers. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 29% |
| Psychology | 11 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,718,476
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,921
of 4,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,567
of 342,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#67
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.