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

• please read through all the templates before choosing • pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others.• edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. • please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary • submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page.When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example:There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used. The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated.In the published article, there was a mistake in the Funding statement. In the published article, there was an error. In the abstract, under results, constant observation (CO) in unit B is incorrectly described as having increased with outdoor space inaccessibility in 2024, rather than decreased. Also, CO in unit A is incorrectly described as having no change with outdoor space inaccessibility, when there was actually a decrease when compared to 2022 although not to 2023.A correction has been made to Abstract, Results. 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: