Correction: Healing spaces: a retrospective cohort study on the effect of outdoor spaces in psychiatric inpatient units on PRN medication use, seclusion/restraints, and constant observation
Kevin Liu, Ema Saito, Howard Linder
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Urban Green Space and Health · Psychiatric care and mental health services
In the published article, there was an error. In the Abstract, Results, constant observation (CO) in unit B was incorrectly described as having increased with outdoor space inaccessibility in 2024, rather than decreased. CO in unit A was incorrectly described as having no change with outdoor space inaccessibility, when there was actually a decrease when compared to 2022, although not to 2023. This paragraph previously stated:
“On unit B, outdoor space inaccessibility was significantly associated with higher IM PRN use (mean difference = 1.57 orders/day, 95% CI [0.81, 2.33]), seclusion and restraint (mean difference = 0.63 orders/day, 95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), and CO (mean difference = 0.40 orders/day, 95% CI [0.17, 0.63]), with no significant change in PO PRN. On unit A, outdoor space inaccessibility was associated with an increase in PO PRN use (mean difference = 0.64 orders/day, 95% CI [0.26, 1.02]), but IM PRN, seclusion and restraint, and CO did not show a statistically significant change.”
The corrected paragraph appears below:
“On unit B, outdoor space inaccessibility was significantly associated with increased IM PRN use (mean difference = 1.57 orders/day, 95% CI [0.81, 2.33]), increased seclusion and restraint (mean difference = 0.63 orders/day, 95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), and decreased CO (mean difference = 0.40 orders/day, 95% CI [0.17, 0.63]), with no significant change in PO PRN. On unit A, outdoor space inaccessibility was associated with an increase in PO PRN use (mean difference = 0.64 orders/day, 95% CI [0.26, 1.02]), while IM PRN, seclusion and restraint, and CO did not show any statistically significant increase.”
The original article has been updated.