{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016801493466085875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004978220286247666, 'mean_word_length': 5.432, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of the restraint and seclusion experiences of patients with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to understand how restrained and secluded patients felt about these interventions, and to compare the perceptions of the two groups.


METHODS
Subjects were 25 restrained, and 25 secluded inpatients. A questionnaire was developed to explore patients' feelings and perceptions of the two interventions. Comparisons were made on the clinical data and the answers from both groups.


RESULTS
Restrained and secluded patients seemed to view some aspects of their experience differently. Few (40%) of the secluded group reported finding positive aspects, compared to even fewer (20%) of restrained. Most patients in both groups felt negatively about staff involved, and disagreed with staff on the reported intensity of their documented threatening behavior. The interventions seemed to have only a brief modifying effect on patients' behavior following these interventions and did not seem to modify future behavior.


CONCLUSIONS
Despite their differences, many patients in both groups reported negative feelings about the interventions and the staff involved. Both groups seemed not to perceive the procedural staff interactions as communication. Our study population seemed to be a subgroup of the admitted patient population who were repeatedly requiring seclusion or restraint. Screening this patient population during the admission process, and planning preventive and alternative interventions could decrease the need for restraint and seclusion.