<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>34</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Veronica Fjeld</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A comparison of Norway and Denmark’s legislations regarding the use of restraints in  psychiatric institutions in light of the Human Rights Convention article 3.</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">article 3</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">artikkel 3</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">belteseng</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coercion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coercive measures</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human Rights Convention</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mekaniske tvangsmidler</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Restraints</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">tvangsmidler.</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">05.08.2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">University of Dundee</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dundee</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The theme of the dissertation is to examine the Norwegian and Danish legislations regarding the use of restraints in psychiatric health care and study the legislations in light of the European Convention on Human Rights article 3. The hypothesis is that Denmark uses restraints in a wider scope and with a longer duration than Norway.&amp;nbsp;Based on this, could distinctions in regulation explain this difference? Furthermore, the use of restraints is a severe intervention in a person&amp;rsquo;s sphere and integrity. ECHR article 3 prohibits such intervention, unless some requirements are fulfilled. Therefore, is the operating law in Norway and Denmark in accordance with article 3? To answer these questions the legislations which regulates when it is lawful to put a patient under restraints will be examined and thereafter the legislations will be compared to see if there is a difference. To examine the situation regarding use of restraints and whether the two countries practice is in accordance with article 3, one court decision from both the countries will be examined and the two most recent reports from The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.&amp;nbsp;This will give an indication of the situation of the operating law in the two countries.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Master thesis</style></work-type></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Unn E. Hammervold</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reidun Norvoll</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Randi W. Aas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hildegunn Sagvaag</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Post-incident review after restraint in mental health care -a potential for knowledge development, recovery promotion and restraint prevention. A scoping review.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BMC Health Services Research (Open Access)</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Debriefing</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mental</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Post-incident review</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Recovery-oriented care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reflection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Restraint reduction</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Restraints</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">04/2019</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6480590/</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;h3 id=&quot;__sec1title&quot;&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;Par1&quot;&gt;Use of physical restraint is a common practice in mental healthcare, but is controversial due to risk of physical and psychological harm to patients and creating ethical dilemmas for care providers. Post-incident review (PIR), that involve patient and care providers after restraints, have been deployed to prevent harm and to reduce restraint use. However, this intervention has an unclear scientific knowledge base. Thus, the aim of this scoping review was to explore the current knowledge of PIR and to assess to what extent PIR can minimize restraint-related use and harm, support care providers in handling professional and ethical dilemmas, and improve the quality of care in mental healthcare.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;__sec2title&quot;&gt;Methods&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;Par2&quot;&gt;Systematic searches in the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science databases were carried out. The search terms were derived from the population, intervention and settings.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;__sec3title&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;Par3&quot;&gt;Twelve studies were included, six quantitative, four qualitative and two mixed methods. The studies were from Sweden, United Kingdom, Canada and United States. The studies&amp;rsquo; design and quality varied, and PIR s&amp;rsquo; were conducted differently. Five studies explored PIR s&amp;rsquo; as a separate intervention after restraint use, in the other studies, PIR s&amp;rsquo; were described as one of several components in restraint reduction programs. Outcomes seemed promising, but no significant outcome were related to using PIR alone. Patients and care providers reported PIR to: 1) be an opportunity to review restraint events, they would not have had otherwise, and 2) promote patients&amp;rsquo; personal recovery processes, and 3) stimulate professional reflection on organizational development and care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;h3 id=&quot;__sec4title&quot;&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;p id=&quot;Par4&quot;&gt;Scientific literature directly addressing PIR s&amp;rsquo; after restraint use is lacking. However, results indicate that PIR may contribute to more professional and ethical practice regarding restraint promotion and the way restraint is executed. The practice of PIR varied, so a specific manual cannot be recommended. More research on PIR use and consequences is needed, especially PIR&amp;rsquo;s potential to contribute to restraint prevention in mental healthcare.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">235</style></issue><label><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tvangsmidler</style></label></record></records></xml>