Physical restraint in critical care units from the experience of doctors and nursing assistants: In search of an interdisciplinary interpretation

The effect of a live music therapy intervention on critically ill paediatric patients in the intensive care unit: A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study

BACKGROUND

Music therapy as a nonpharmacological means of managing patient pain, anxiety, and discomfort is a recognised technique, although it is not widely used in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU).

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical effect of a live music therapy intervention on vital signs and levels of discomfort and pain for paediatric patients in the PICU.

METHODS

This was a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study. The music therapy intervention was carried out by two music therapists who were specifically trained, each possessing a master's degree in the field of hospital music therapy. Ten minutes before the start of the music therapy session, the investigators recorded the vital signs of the patients and assessed their levels of discomfort and pain. The procedure was repeated at the start of the intervention; at 2, 5, and 10 min during the intervention; and at 10 min following the conclusion of the intervention.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-nine patients were included; 55.2% were male, with a median age of 1 year (0-21). A total of 96 (37.1%) patients suffered a chronic illness. The main reason for PICU admission was respiratory illness, at 50.2% (n = 130). Significantly lower values were observed for heart rate (p = 0.002), breathing rate (p < 0.001), and degree of discomfort (p < 0.001) during the music therapy session.

CONCLUSIONS

Live music therapy results in reduced heart rates, breathing rates, and paediatric patient discomfort levels. Although music therapy is not widely used in the PICU, our results suggest that using interventions such as that used in this study could help reduce patient discomfort.

The use of mechanical restraint in critical care units: Characterisation, application standards and related factors. Results of a multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

To describe and characterise the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in critical care units (CCU) in terms of frequency and quality of application and to study its relationship with pain/agitation-sedation/delirium, nurse:patient ratio and institutional involvement.

METHOD

Multicentre observational study conducted in 17 CCUs between February and May 2016. The observation time per CCU was 96 h. The main variables were the prevalence of restraint, the degree of adherence to MR recommendations, pain/agitation-sedation/delirium monitoring and institutional involvement (protocols and training of professionals).

RESULTS

A total of 1070 patients were included. The overall prevalence of restraint was 19.11%, in patients with endotracheal tube (ETT) 42.10% and in patients without ETT or artificial airway it was 13.92%. Adherence rates between 0% and 40% were obtained for recommendations related to non-pharmacological management and between 0% and 100% for those related to monitoring of ethical-legal aspects. The lower prevalence of restraint was correlated with adequate pain monitoring in non-communicative patients (P < .001) and with the provision of training for professionals (P = .020). An inverse correlation was found between the quality of the use of MR and its prevalence, both in the general group of patients admitted to CCU (r = -.431) and in the subgroup of patients with ETT (r = -.521).

CONCLUSIONS

Restraint is especially frequently used in patients with ETT/artificial airway, but is also used in other patients who may not meet the use profile. There is wide room for improvement in non-pharmacological alternatives to the use of MC, ethical and legal vigilance, and institutional involvement. Better interpretation of patient behaviour with validated tools may help limit use of MR.

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.