It has been suggested that after an incident in which a patient has been placed in seclusion or in restraints, an intervention should be conducted after the event to ensure continuity of care and prevent recurrences. Several terms are used, and various models have been suggested for post-seclusion and/or restraint review; however, the intervention has never been precisely defined. This article presents a scoping review on post-seclusion and/or restraint review in psychiatry to examine existing models and the theoretical foundations on which they rely. A scoping review of academic articles (CINAHL and Medline database) yielded 28 articles. Post-seclusion and/or restraint review has its origins in the concepts of debriefing in psychology and reflective practice in nursing. We propose a typology in terms of the intervention target, including the patient, the health care providers, or both. The analysis found that the review ought to involve both the patient and the care providers using an approach that fosters reflexivity among all those involved in order to change the practice of seclusion in psychiatric settings. • Established literature documented widely that seclusion and restraint has adverse physical and psychological consequences for patient and for health care providers. • Post-seclusion and/or restraint review is promoted in most guidelines, but there is no scoping or systematic review yet on the subject. • The origins of post-seclusion and/or restraint review are in the concepts of debriefing in psychology and reflective practice in nursing. • We propose that post-seclusion and/or restraint review should focus on both patients and health care providers.• Systematic post-seclusion and/or restraint review should be performed after each event, and its effects on patients and on mental health professionals should be rigorously assessed.

This paper reports on an analysis of the concept of reflective practice. Reflective practice, a concept borrowed from the field of education, is widely used in nursing. However, to date, no study has explored whether this appropriation has resulted in a definition of the concept specific to the nursing discipline. A sample comprised of 42 articles in the field of nursing drawn from the CINAHL database and 35 articles in education from the ERIC database (1989-2013) was analyzed. A concept analysis using the method proposed by Bowers and Schatzman was conducted to explore the differing meanings of reflective practice in nursing and education. In nursing, the dimensions of the concept differ depending on context. In the clinical context, the dimensions may be summarized as theory-practice gap, development, and caring; in training, as learning, guided process, and development; and in research, as knowledge, method, and social change. In education, the concept is also used in the contexts of training (the dimensions being development, deliberate review, emotions, and evaluation) and research (knowledge, temporal distance, and method). The humanist dimension in nursing thus reflects a use of the concept more specific to the discipline. The concept analysis helped clarify the meaning of reflective practice in nursing and its specific use in the discipline. This observation leads to a consideration of how the concept has developed since its appropriation by nursing; the adoption of a terminology particular to nursing may well be worth contemplating.

Given the increasing literature on forensic assertive community treatment (FACT), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of FACT among justice-involved individuals with severe mental illness. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review, six of which were included in the meta-analyses for a total of 1,246 participants. Mixed results regarding health-related outcomes were found. The pre-post FACT analysis and comparison with control groups did not yield significant results other than increased outpatient service use. Results on forensic outcomes were more compelling. Both the narrative review and the meta-analysis highlighted that FACT programs may improve justice outcomes such as the number of days spent in jail. More high quality and multisite randomized controlled trials are needed to consolidate findings. Further research is needed to examine other psychosocial factors related to FACT program success.