Prevalence Of Physical Restraint Use Research Articles

NURSING STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCES REGARDING PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW

Abstract Many harmful effects related to the use of physical restraints have been reported and restraint-free care has been advocated for in many countries. However, the prevalence of physical restraint use is still high in many care settings around the world. There has been no systematic review study focused on nursing students regarding physical restraints. This study aimed to critically review the existing studies targeting nursing students related to physical restraint using an integrative review method. This study was registered in PROSPERO(CRD42023414410). Eleven electronic databases were searched by two authors: CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Education Source, SCOPUS, RISS, DBpia, Cochrane, and KoreaMed from the earliest year to 2023. A total of 19 studies including diverse research designs were selected. For quality appraisal, both the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and the Joanna Briggs Institutes (JBI) checklist were employed. Most studies were conducted in acute clinical care settings. Many studies used a cross-sectional study design, convenience sampling method, small number of participants, and weak measurements. There was a lack of experimental studies, mixed methods studies, and financially funded studies. The main outcomes were nursing students’ attitude, knowledge, perception, or practice regarding physical restraints. This integrative review provided new knowledge and understanding about nursing students’ experiences regarding physical restraints. Future studies must use more robust research design, sample size, and measurements with research funding. This study showed that more research and education targeting nursing students are needed to achieve restraint-free care.

Physical Restraint Use in Nursing Homes-Regional Variances and Ethical Considerations: A Scoping Review of Empirical Studies.

Physical restraints are known to violate human rights, yet their use persists in long-term care facilities. This study aimed to explore the prevalence, methods, and interventions related to physical restraint use among the elderly in nursing homes. The method described by Joanna Briggs was followed to conduct a scoping review without a quality assessment of the selected studies. An electronic search was conducted to find eligible empirical articles using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and grey literature. The database search was performed using EndNote software (version X9, Clarivate Analytics), and the data were imported into Excel for analysis. The prevalence of physical restraint use was found to be highest in Spain (84.9%) and lowest in the USA (1.9%). The most common device reported was bed rails, with the highest prevalence in Singapore (98%) and the lowest (4.7%) in Germany, followed by chair restraint (57%). The largest number of studies reported the prevention and/or risk of falls to be the main reason for using physical restraints, followed by behavioral problems such as wandering, verbal or physical agitation, and cognitive impairment. Most studies reported guideline- and/or theory-based multicomponent interventions consisting of the training and education of nursing home staff. This review provides valuable insights into the use of physical restraints among elderly residents in nursing homes. Despite efforts to minimize their use, physical restraints continue to be employed, particularly with elderly individuals who have cognitive impairments. Patient-related factors such as wandering, agitation, and cognitive impairment were identified as the second most common reasons for using physical restraints in this population. To address this issue, it is crucial to enhance the skills of nursing home staff, especially nurses, in providing safe and ethical care for elderly residents with cognitive and functional impairments, aggressive behaviors, and fall risks.

Prevalence and risk factors of the use of physical restraint and impact of a decision support tool: A before-and-after study.

Physical restraint is frequently used in intensive care units to prevent patients' life-threatening removal of indwelling devices. In France, their use is poorly studied. Therefore, to evaluate the need for physical restraint, we have designed and implemented a decision support tool. Besides describing the prevalence of physical restraint use, this study aimed to assess whether the implementation of a nursing decision support tool had an impact on restraint use and to identify the factors associated with this use. A large observational, multicentre study with a repeated one-day point prevalence design was conducted. All adult patients hospitalized in intensive care units were eligible for this study. Two study periods were planned: before (control period) and after (intervention period) the deployment of the decision support tool and staff training. A multilevel model was performed to consider the centre effect. During the control period, 786 patients were included, and 510 were in the intervention period. The prevalence of physical restraint was 28% (95% CI: 25.1%-31.4%) and 25% (95% CI: 21.5%-29.1%) respectively (χ2 = 1.35; p = .24). Restraint was applied by the nurse and/or nurse assistant in 96% of cases in both periods, mainly to wrists (89% vs. 83%, p = .14). The patient-to-nurse ratio was significantly lower in the intervention period (1:3.0 ± 1 vs. 1:2.7 ± 0.7, p < .001). In multivariable analysis, mechanical ventilation was associated with physical restraint (aOR [95% CI] = 6.0 [3.5-10.2]). The prevalence of physical restraint use in France was lower than expected. In our study, the decision support tool did not substantially impact physical restraint use. Hence, the decision support tool would deserve to be assessed in a randomized controlled trial. The decision to physically restrain a patient could be protocolised and managed by critical care nurses. A regular evaluation of the level of sedation could allow the most deeply sedated patients to be exempted from physical restraint.

Prevalence and Influencing Factors of Physical Restraints in Intensive Care Units: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Physical restraints are used routinely in intensive care units (ICUs) and have negative effects. It is critical to identify the impact factors of physical restraints on critically ill patients. The present study investigated the prevalence of physical restraints and impact factors associated with their use in a large cohort of critically ill patients over one year. A retrospective cohort study was performed in multiple ICUs at a tertiary hospital in China in 2019 using observational data from electronic medical records. The data consisted of demographics and clinical variables. Logistic regression was used to assess the independent impact factors for the use of physical restraint. The analysis consisted of 3776 critically ill patients with a prevalence of physical restraint use of 48.8%. The logistic regression analysis indicated that physical restraint use was associated with independent risk factors, including surgical ICU admission, pain, tracheal tube placement, and abdominal drainage tube placement. Physical restraint use was associated with independent protective factors, including male sex, light sedation, muscle strength, and ICU length of stay. The prevalence of physical restraint use in critically ill patients was high. Tracheal tubes, surgical ICU, pain, abdominal drainage tubes, light sedation, and muscle strength were independent variables associated with the use of physical restraint. These results will assist health professionals in identifying high-risk physical restraint patients based on their impact factors. Early removal of the tracheal tube and abdominal drainage tube, pain relief, light sedation, and improvements in muscle strength may help reduce the use of physical restraints.

Outcomes for Hospitalized Aggressive and Violent Patients When Physical Restraints Are Introduced.

Hospital outcomes among patients acting aggressively or violently have not been extensively studied in the United States. The aims of the study are to determine rates of physical restraint use among hospitalized patients who are aggressive/violent and to characterize associations with mortality and utilization metrics. National Inpatient Sample databases from 2016 to 2019 were analyzed with multivariable regression to compare aggressive/violent patients in whom physical restraints were or were not used. Prevalence of physical restraint use, in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total hospital charges were measures. A total of 40,309 hospitalized patients were coded as having aggressive/violent behavior, of whom 4475 (11.1%) were physically restrained. Physically restrained patients were younger (mean age ± standard error, 42.6 ± 0.64 versus 45.7± 0.41; P < 0.01), more frequently male (71.0% versus 65.4%; P < 0.01), and had less comorbidity (Charlson Index score >3: 7.9% versus 12.5%; P < 0.01) than unrestrained patients. Patients with physical restraints had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.4, confidence interval [CI], 1.0-5.7; P = 0.04) and lower odds of being discharged to home (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; CI, 0.38-0.56; P < 0.01) compared with unrestrained patients. Longer hospital stays (adjusted mean difference, 4.1 days CI, 2.1-6.0; P < 0.01) and higher hospitalization charges (adjusted mean difference, $16,996; CI, 6883-27,110; P < 0.01) were observed for those who were physically restrained. Physically restrained aggressive/violent patients had worse in-hospital outcomes compared with their unrestrained counterparts. Avoiding physical restraints whenever possible should be considered when managing this confrontational yet vulnerable patient population. When restraints are needed, providers must thoughtfully bear in mind heightened risks for worse outcomes.

Association of surveillance technology and staff opinions with physical restraint use in nursing homes: Cross-sectional study.

BackgroundPhysical restraints are used in nursing homes (NHs) despite their negative consequences. Use of surveillance technologies as alternatives to physical forms of restraints and negative staff opinions about the appropriateness of restraint use have been postulated to reduce this practice; however, these have rarely been investigated alongside resident outcome data. This study aimed to measure physical restraint prevalence in Swiss NHs and its associations with (a) the use of surveillance technologies and (b) staff's opinion about the appropriateness of physical restraint use.MethodsThis cross‐sectional multicenter study analyzed data on 3,137 staff and 6,149 residents of 292 units in 86 Swiss NHs (2018–2019). Based on routine resident data, we measured the prevalence of two classes of physical restraint: (a) bedrails or (b) trunk fixation or seating option that prevents standing. To assess potential factors associated with restraint use, we applied a logistic multilevel model.ResultsA 11.1% of residents were restrained with at least one form of physical restraint. Against our hypothesis, surveillance technologies were not significantly associated with restraint use, and staff members' opinion that the use of physical restraints was appropriate on their unit was associated with decreased odds of residents being restrained (odds ratio (OR): 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29–0.80).ConclusionsAlthough Swiss NHs have a low prevalence of physical restraint use, only a minority of NH units do not use any restraints with their residents. Surveillance technologies seem to be used concurrently with restraints and not as an alternative. Further research should investigate staff's current and intended uses of surveillance technologies in practice. Staff members' opinion that they use restraints inappropriately might correctly reflect overuse of restraints on their unit. If so, staff ratings of inappropriate restraint use may identify units that need improvement.

Physical Restraint Use in Intensive Care Units: Exploring the Decision-Making Process and New Proposals. A Multimethod Study.

Aim: The general aim of this study was to explore the decision-making process followed by Intensive Care Unit (ICU) health professionals with respect to physical restraint (PR) administration and management, along with the factors that influence it. Method: A qual-quant multimethod design was sequenced in two stages: an initial stage following a qualitative methodology; and second, quantitative with a predominant descriptive approach. The multicenter study was undertaken at 17 ICUs belonging to 11 public hospitals in the Madrid region (Spain) across the period 2015 through 2019. The qualitative stage was performed from an interpretative phenomenological perspective. A total of eight discussion groups (DG) were held, with the participation of 23 nurses, 12 patient care nursing assistants, and seven physicians. Intentional purposive sampling was carried out. DG were tape-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis of the latent content was performed. In the quantitative stage, we maintained a 96-h observation period at each ICU. Variables pertaining to general descriptive elements of each ICU, institutional pain-agitation/sedation-delirium (PAD) monitoring policies and elements linked to quality of PR use were recorded. A descriptive analysis was performed, and the relationship between the variables was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Findings: A total of 1070 patients were observed, amounting to a median prevalence of PR use of 19.11% (min: 0%–max: 44.44%). The differences observed between ICUs could be explained by a difference in restraint conceptualization. The various actors involved jointly build up a health care culture and a conceptualization of the terms “safety-risk”, which determine decision-making about the use of restraints at each ICU. These shared meanings are the germ of beliefs, values, and rituals which, in this case, determine the greater or lesser use of restraints. There were different profiles of PR use among the units studied: preventive restraints versus “Zero” restraints. The differences corresponded to aspects such as: systematic use of tools for assessment of PAD; interpretation of patient behavior; the decision-making process, the significance attributed to patient safety and restraints; and the feelings generated by PR use. The restraint–free model requires an approach to safety from a holistic perspective, with the involvement of all team members and the family.

Prevalence of and factors associated with physical restraint use in the intensive care unit: a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan.

Physical restraint is widely used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to ensure patient safety despite its ethical implications. We performed a prospective observational study in six ICUs in Japan to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with physical restraint use in the ICU, a phenomenon that has not yet been reported on in Japan. Data were collected on 10 random days between November 2018 and February 2019. We evaluated physical restraint use in ICU patients aged ≥ 20years during the data collection days. Among the 787 observations, the prevalence of physical restraint use was 32.9%; however, it was 41.5% in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The average age of patients was 68.5years, and the average Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 19.4. Among the included patients, 52.1% received IMV, and 17.2% were diagnosed with delirium. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the independent factors [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)] associated with physical restraint use were age [1.02 (1.00-1.05)], APACHE II score [1.05 (1.01-1.09)], IMV [2.15 (1.16-4.01)], central venous catheter indwelling [2.66 (1.46-4.85)], sedative medication [2.98 (1.72-5.17)], agitation [7.83 (2.96-20.8)], and delirium [4.16 (2.37-7.29)]. Approximately one-third of the ICU patients required physical restraint in Japan. In addition, physical restraint use was influenced by disease severity, mental condition, and the medical apparatus used. Based on these findings, further investigations are imperative to develop strategies to reduce physical restraint use.

Physical Restraint Use in Swiss Nursing Homes: Two New National Quality Indicators

Quality indicators are used in nursing homes to assess physical restraint use. Switzerland introduced two publicly reported indicators measuring the use of 1) bedrails and 2) trunk fixation or seating that prevent standing up. Whether these indicators show good between-provider variability is unknown. The study aimed to measure the prevalence of physical restraint use and assess their between-provider variability using a cross-sectional, multicentre study of a convenience sample of nursing homes. The between-provider variability of the indicators was assessed with intraclass correlation 1 and with caterpillar plots based on Empirical Bayes estimates. We included 11,412 residents from 152 nursing homes. Prevalence rates were 13.5% (n=1’433) for bedrails and 3.6% (n=411) for trunk fixation / seating that prevent standing up. For the first indicator, intraclass correlation 1 was 0.245 (95%-CI 0.197-0.286), for the second 0.343 (95%-CI 0.235-0.405). The two indicators showed good between-provider variability and can be recommended for public reporting. Part of a symposium sponsored by Systems Research in Long-Term Care Interest Group.

Prevalence of physical restraint among ventilated intensive care unit patients.

To investigate the prevalence of physical restraint among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients in Jordan and to identify predicting factors and consequences. Physical restraint has been widely used among intensive care unit patients in many countries. Despite the benefits it offers in protecting patients from disrupting their medical treatment, it has been reported that restraint has many physical and psychological adverse effects. A cross-sectional and observational study was conducted during a period of 3months (April-June 2017). A sample of 321 intensive care unit patients was selected from five governmental and one university-affiliated hospital in the north and middle of Jordan. The Restraint Prevalence Tool was used to collect data from the patients. The study found that the prevalence of physical restraint use on intensive care unit patients in Jordan was 35.8%. This prevalence rate varied across the units, ranging from 33.3%-57.1%. The factors that predicted physical restraint use were younger age (odds ratio=0.96), large intensive care unit (odds ratio=6.14), the surgical intensive care unit (odds ratio=10.36), the night shift (odds ratio=3.57), a conscious patient (odds ratio=2.24) and longer hospital stay (odds ratio=1.07). However, hospital type, gender and being on chemical restraint were not significantly associated with physical restraint. Many patients were observed to have physical complications from restraint use, such as redness, bruising and oedema. Physical restraint is a common practice in Jordan. Not following standard restraint practices may lead to many physical complications among intensive care unit patients. This study recommends implementing more policies/guidelines inside Jordanian hospitals. In addition, nursing education programs on the safe use of physical restraint should be implemented.

Investigating influencing factors of physical restraint use in China intensive care units: A prospective, cross-sectional, observational study

ObjectiveIn this study, we characterised the use of physical restraints in three intensive care units (ICUs) in a general hospital in Nantong, China. Additionally, we explored risk factors potentially related to physical restraint use. BackgroundDespite their numerous harmful effects, physical restraints are frequently used in ICUs worldwide. Few studies have investigated the factors that contribute to physical restraint use in Chinese hospitals. MethodsWe conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study of 312 patients in three ICUs at a general hospital in China. The quantitative data were collected during a 5-month period using a physical restraint observation form and patient records. The data obtained were analysed using descriptive statistics. The independent risk factors for physical restraint use were assessed using a logistic regression model. ResultsOf the 312 patients in the three ICUs, 191 (61.2%) were restrained, and physical restraints were used more than once for 46 (24.1%) patients during their ICU stay. The median length of physical restrain use was 20 shifts (interquartile range = 10–36 shifts). Physical restraints were applied in 6664 of 12374 (53.9%) nurse shifts. The most common time at which physical restraints were applied was the beginning of the evening shift. According to the forward stepwise logistic regression analysis, delirium (P < 0.001), mechanical ventilation (P < 0.001), and age (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for physical restraint use. The use of analgesics (P = 0.001) exerted an independent protective effect against physical restraint use. ConclusionsThe overall prevalence of physical restraint use in Chinese ICUs was higher than that reported in previous investigations. The patients' nursing notes lacked complete physical restraint records, reflecting a need for standard guidelines and policies for physical restraint use in hospital ICUs in China. In addition, in this study, we explored the risk factors related to physical restraint use and found that age, delirium, mechanical ventilation, and analgesic use are associated with physical restraint use.

Physical Restraints: Consensus of a Research Definition Using a Modified Delphi Technique.

To develop an internationally accepted research definition of physical restraint. Comprehensive literature search followed by a web-based, three-round, modified Delphi technique comprising reviews and feedback. Clinical care settings. An international group of 48 experts consisting of researchers and clinicians from 14 countries who have made sustained contribution to research and clinical application in the field of physical restraint in clinical care. Data were collected using an online survey program and one in-person meeting. Results of the online survey and the in-person meeting were used for distribution in subsequent rounds until consensus on a definition was reached. Consensus was defined as 90% of the participating experts agreeing with the proposed definition of physical restraint. Thirty-four different definitions were identified during the literature search and served as a starting point for the modified Delphi technique. After three rounds, 45 (95.7%) of 47 remaining experts agreed with the newly proposed definition: "Physical restraint is defined as any action or procedure that prevents a person's free body movement to a position of choice and/or normal access to his/her body by the use of any method, attached or adjacent to a person's body that he/she cannot control or remove easily." A multidisciplinary, internationally representative panel of experts reached consensus on a research definition for physical restraints in older persons. This is a necessary step toward improved comparisons of the prevalence of physical restraint use across studies and countries. This definition can further guide research interventions aimed at reducing use of physical restraints.

Use of physical restraint in hospital patients: A descriptive study in a tertiary hospital in South Africa

Background: The use of physical restraint in patient management is a common and emotive issue, and has legal and ethical dimensions. Objective: To document the prevalence of physical restraint use, patient characteristics associated with physical restraint use, and nurses’ and doctors’ knowledge and perceptions towards the practice. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 572 patients, of whom 132 were physically restrained, was conducted in acute wards of a tertiary hospital. Data were collected on the 132 physically restrained patients. Fifty-nine doctors and 159 nurses completed a specially constructed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were derived and expressed as numbers and percentages. Results: Prevalence of restraint use was 23% (132/572). The distribution in acute wards was: medical 54.5%; surgical 44.7%; maternity 0.8%; psychiatry none. Mean age (SD) of the restrained patients was 49 years (20.5); 53.8% were male. The commonest types of restraints used were bed rails 93% and wrist belts 12%. Restraints were used largely to protect medical devices and as protection from harm. Less than 15% of the nurses reported having received training and 36% of the doctors reported having received some guidance on the use of restraints. Only a minority of nurses and doctors knew of a hospital policy on restraint use. Documentation on the prescription and indication for the use of restraint was poor. Conclusion: Prevalence of restraint use is high and poorly coordinated. A policy on the use of restraint and comprehensive guidelines should be developed to guide health care practitioners in the management of patients where restraint cannot be avoided.

Use of physical restraint in hospital patients: A descriptive study in a tertiary hospital in South Africa.

BackgroundThe use of physical restraint in patient management is a common and emotive issue, and has legal and ethical dimensions.ObjectiveTo document the prevalence of physical restraint use, patient characteristics associated with physical restraint use, and nurses’ and doctors’ knowledge and perceptions towards the practice.MethodsA cross-sectional study of 572 patients, of whom 132 were physically restrained, was conducted in acute wards of a tertiary hospital. Data were collected on the 132 physically restrained patients. Fifty-nine doctors and 159 nurses completed a specially constructed questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were derived and expressed as numbers and percentages.ResultsPrevalence of restraint use was 23% (132/572). The distribution in acute wards was: medical 54.5%; surgical 44.7%; maternity 0.8%; psychiatry none. Mean age (SD) of the restrained patients was 49 years (20.5); 53.8% were male. The commonest types of restraints used were bed rails 93% and wrist belts 12%. Restraints were used largely to protect medical devices and as protection from harm. Less than 15% of the nurses reported having received training and 36% of the doctors reported having received some guidance on the use of restraints. Only a minority of nurses and doctors knew of a hospital policy on restraint use. Documentation on the prescription and indication for the use of restraint was poor.ConclusionPrevalence of restraint use is high and poorly coordinated. A policy on the use of restraint and comprehensive guidelines should be developed to guide health care practitioners in the management of patients where restraint cannot be avoided.

Nurses Practice to Physical Restraint Practices in ICU Units at Three Teaching Hospitals in Baghdad

Background: using physical restraints is a highly preferred practice in intensive care units. Most of the studies show that the main reasons for restraining patients is to prevent dislodgment of medical equipment’s and nurses have positive attitudes about restraining practices. Objectives: this research was conducted for the purpose of evaluating the use of physical restraints, and observing ongoing practices and perceptions about physical restraints among intensive care unit nurses. Methodology: A descriptive–cross sectional study done with 3 intensive care unit nurses in the 1st of Jan to end of May 2014. Nurses who agree to participate in the study were (63) filled out the questionnaire prepared by the researcher. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part included questions related to nurses demographic variables; the second part included questions related to restraint practices of nurses; the third part included phrases to determine nurses perceptions for restraint use where nurses gave agree/ disagree answers. Results: the study indicated that the Prevalence of physical restraint use is high in all ICUs. Gauze is the mostly used but not a proper material for restraining patients in all intensive care units. Reasons for using restraints as described by nurses are to prevent equipment dislodgement and providing safe working environment for themselves. Conclusions: In this study, physical restraining practices of intensive care nurses and materials used for this practice are not appropriate for patient care. Perceptions and knowledge of nurses play an important role on the selection of the restraining method. Recommendation: The study recommended that in order to get a better nursing care it is very important to develop a restraint policy and educate nurses to provide awareness about this highly used practice in intensive care units in these hospitals

Physical restraint use in institutional care of old people in Sweden in 2000 and 2007

Physical restraint use is common in institutional care for old people and mainly used to prevent falls, despite the fall-preventive effect of physical restraints being questioned in previous research. The aim of the study was to investigate the use of physical restraints in Sweden in 2000 and 2007. Data were collected from two comparable census surveys conducted in all institutional care units for old people in 2000 (n = 3,669) and 2007 (n = 2,914). Information on residents' characteristics and physical restraint use was collected using the Multi-Dimensional Dementia Assessment Scale (MDDAS). In 2000 16.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.8%-17.2%) of the residents were restrained compared to 18.2% (95% CI 16.8%-19.6%) in 2007 (p = 0.017). Adjusting for residents' characteristics showed that residents in 2007 were more likely to be physically restrained, relative to the residents in 2000 (odds ratio (OR) 1.031, 95% CI 1.005-1.058, p = 0.017). In 2007 the residents had been restrained longer, and a higher proportion were restrained for unknown reasons. Physical restraint use is still common. Moreover, the findings of this study suggest a small increase (OR 1.031) in the prevalence of physical restraint use from 2000 to 2007 adjusted for residents' characteristics.

Physical restraint use in intensive care units across Europe: The PRICE study

The use of physical restraint has been linked to delirium in ICU patients and a range of physical and psychological outcomes in non-ICU patients. However, the extent of restraint practice in ICUs is largely unknown. This study was designed to examine physical restraint practices across European ICUs. A prospective point prevalence survey was conducted in adult ICUs across European countries to examine: physical and chemical restraint use during the weekend and weekdays, reasons for physical restraint use, timing of restraint use, type of restraint used and availability of restraint policies. Thirty-four general (adult) ICUs in nine countries participated in the study providing information on 669 patients with details of physical and chemical restraint use in 566 patients. Prevalence of physical restraint use in individual units ranged from 0 to 100% of patients. Thirty-three per cent of patients were physically restrained; those that were restrained were more likely to be ventilated (χ(2)=87.56, p<0.001), sedated (χ(2)34.66, p<0.001), managed in a larger unit (χ(2)=10.741, p=.005) and managed in a unit with a lower daytime nurse:patient ratio (χ(2)=17.17, p=0.001). Larger units were more likely to use commercial wrist restraints and smaller units were more likely to have a restraint policy, although these results did not reach significance. As an initial exploration, this study provides evidence of the range of restraint practice across Units in Europe. Variation in the number of units per country limits generalization of findings. However, further examination is needed to determine whether there is a causal element to these relationships. Attention should be paid to developing evidence based guidelines to underpin restraint practices.

Use of physical restraints and antipsychotic medications in nursing homes: a cross‐national study

This study compares inter- and intra-country differences in the prevalence of physical restraints and antipsychotic medications in nursing homes, and examines aggregated resident conditions and organizational characteristics correlated with these treatments. Population-based, cross-sectional data were collected using a standardized Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) from 14,504 long-term care facilities providing nursing home level services in five countries participating in the interRAI consortium, including Canada, Finland, Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region, China), Switzerland, and the United States. Facility-level prevalence rates of physical restraints and antipsychotic use were examined both between and within the study countries. The prevalence of physical restraint use varied more than five-fold across the study countries, from an average 6% in Switzerland, 9% in the US, 20% in Hong Kong, 28% in Finland, and over 31% in Canada. The prevalence of antipsychotic use ranged from 11% in Hong Kong, between 26-27% in Canada and the US, 34% in Switzerland, and nearly 38% in Finland. Within each country, substantial variations existed across facilities in both physical restraint and antipsychotic use rates. In all countries, neither facility case mix nor organizational characteristics were particularly predictive of the prevalence of either treatment. There exists large, unexplained variability in the prevalence of physical restraint and antipsychotic use in nursing home facilities both between and within countries. Since restraints and antipsychotics are associated with adverse outcomes, it is important to understand the idiosyncratic factors specific to each country that contribute to variation in use rates.

The use of physical restraints on paediatric intensive care units

Physical restraints are used in critical care units in an attempt to reduce the risk of treatment interference. Their use remains controversial and there are concerns regarding the effectiveness and safety of restraint techniques. There are few data available on the prevalence of physical restraint use in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) in the UK and we have therefore conducted a cross-sectional survey to define current clinical practice. A postal questionnaire was sent to all UK PICU with questions on the use of physical restraint techniques, including the use of splints across the joints of limbs and of securing limbs to the bed. Consent issues were also addressed. Of those units responding 68% reported that physical restraint techniques were used within those units. Ten units (36% of those responding) reported the use of manual holding of patients, 16 units (57% of those responding) reported the use of splints across the joints of limbs, three units reported the use of swaddling as a restraint technique while one unit secured limbs of patients to the bed. None of the units obtained written consent prior to the use of physical restraints and 53% obtained verbal consent. Physical restraint is a commonly used technique on PICU in the UK. There is considerable variation in clinical practice and current clinical guidelines which are available do not deal specifically with children. Prospective randomized trials would be necessary to fully investigate the role of physical restraints amongst critically ill children.

Use of physical restraints with cognitively impaired nursing home residents.

The aim of the study was to examine the prevalence of physical restraint use in cognitively impaired nursing home residents, the manner in which restraints are used, reasons for using them, and relationships between residents' characteristics and use of physical restraints. A point prevalence study was conducted on the use of physical restraints among all residents cared for in two Dutch nursing homes and one nursing home unit (n = 265). Data about the nursing home residents and the use of restraints were collected by means of a questionnaire, which was filled in by the nurses. The response rate was 98%. The mean age of residents was 81 years (sd = 8.6), 74% of whom were female. One or more restraints were used with 49% of the residents. The most frequently used physical restraints were bed rails, a waist belt, and a chair with a table. In almost all situations (90%), residents were continuously restrained and restraints were used for longer than 3 months. The most common reason (90%) for use of restraints was to prevent falls. Logistic regression analysis revealed that use of restraints was highly associated with poor mobility, care dependency and risk of falling in the opinion of nursing staff. The results of this study are comparable with those of other studies. However, since recent studies have reported that physical restraints are inadequate to prevent falls, recommendations are made to re-evaluate critically the use of restraints and to conduct future research into a responsible and safe way of decreasing the use of physical restraints.