Prevalence and variability in use of physical and chemical restraints in residential aged care facilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Prevalence of involuntary treatment among community-living older persons with dementia: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to ascertain the prevalence of involuntary treatment among community-living older persons with dementia and explore associated factors.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus) from their inception to October 17, 2023, with an update conducted on April 1, 2024. Meta-analysis synthesized prevalence estimates of involuntary treatment and its three subcategories, with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

This study included 11 research papers involving 12,136 community-dwelling individuals with cognitive impairment and dementia from 19 countries. The pooled prevalence of involuntary treatment among community-dwelling older persons with dementia was 45.2% (95% CI: 33.7-60.5%). Subcategories included physical restraints (9.8%, 95% CI: 5.1-18.8%), psychotropic medication (19.1%, 95% CI: 13.6-26.9%), and non-consensual care (34.3%, 27.6-42.7%). Factors influencing involuntary treatment were categorized as caregiver-related and care recipient-related.

CONCLUSION

This study underscores the prevalent use of involuntary treatment among community-dwelling older persons with dementia, emphasizing its association with specific caregiver and care recipient factors. Addressing these findings underscores the importance of proactive measures and targeted interventions to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population.

Exploring the Safewards Programme to Reduce Restrictive Practices in Residential Aged Care: Protocol for a Pilot and Feasibility Study

INTRODUCTION

Restrictive practice use in residential aged care homes internationally is unacceptably high. Although policies and legislation mandate the reduction or elimination of restrictive practices, there remains a gap in knowledge regarding strategies that have been effective in achieving a sustained reduction in restraint use. There is an urgent need to identify effective and feasible interventions that aged care staff can implement in everyday practice to reduce restraint use. Safewards is an evidence-based programme that has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing conflict and restrictive practice use in inpatient psychiatric settings and has the potential to address the issue of restraint use in aged care homes. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of Safewards in reducing restrictive practices in residential aged care homes.

METHODS

This pilot and feasibility study will adopt a mixed methods process and outcomes evaluation. Safewards will be implemented in two Australian residential aged care homes. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework will be used to evaluate implementation outcomes. Additionally, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will be used to guide qualitative data collection (including semi-structured interviews with residents/family members, aged care leaders and staff) and explain the facilitators and barriers to effective implementation.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide pilot evidence on the feasibility of the Safewards programme in residential aged care homes. Understanding the processes and adaptations for implementing and evaluating Safewards in residential aged care will inform a future trial in aged care to assess its effectiveness. More broadly, the findings will support the implementation of an international aged care policy of reducing restrictive practices in residential aged care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

A person with lived experience of caring for someone with dementia is employed as a Safewards facilitator and is a member of the steering committee. Residents and family members will be invited to participate in the project steering committee and provide feedback on their experience of Safewards.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12624000044527.

National Trends in Antidepressant Use in Australian Residential Aged Care Facilities (2006-2019)

OBJECTIVES

Antipsychotics have been the focus of reforms for improving the appropriateness of psychotropic medicine use in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Comprehensive evaluation of antidepressant use in RACFs is required to inform policy and practice initiatives targeting psychotropic medicines. This study examined national trends in antidepressant use among older people living in RACFs from 2006 to 2019.

DESIGN

National repeated cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 65 to 105 years who were permanent, long-term (≥100 days) residents of Australian RACFs between January 2006 and December 2019 were included.

METHODS

Annual age- and sex-adjusted antidepressant prevalence rates and defined daily doses (DDDs) supplied per 1000 resident-days from 2006 to 2019 were determined. Age- and sex-adjusted prevalence rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Poisson and negative binomial regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 779,659 residents of 3371 RACFs were included (786,227,380 resident-days). Overall, antidepressant use increased from 46.1% (95% CI, 45.9-46.4) in 2006 to 58.5% (95% CI, 58.3-58.8) of residents in 2019 (aRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.02). Mirtazapine use increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 8.2-8.5) to 20.9% (95% CI, 20.7-21.1) from 2006 to 2019 (aRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.07-1.07). Antidepressant use increased from 350.3 (95% CI, 347.6-353.1) to 506.0 (95% CI, 502.8-509.3) DDDs/1000 resident-days (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.03), with mirtazapine utilization increasing by 6% annually (aRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.06-1.06).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This nationwide study identified a substantial increase in antidepressant use among residents of Australian RACFs, largely driven by mirtazapine. With nearly 3 in every 5 residents treated with an antidepressant in 2019, findings highlight potential off-label use and suggest that interventions to optimize care are urgently needed.

Use of physical restraints on older adults in South Korean nursing homes: a multicenter study

In this study, we aimed to examine the current status of physical restraint use and ascertain factors affecting the rate of usage of physical restraints on older adults in South Korean nursing homes. For this purpose, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from 190 registered nurses employed at 62 nursing homes. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the factors affecting the use of restraints in nursing homes. The rate of using physical restraints was 79.5%. Nursing homes were found to use 90.7% and 91.3% less restraint when the work environment was better (odds ratio [OR]: 0.093, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.023-0.368) and mixed (OR: 0.087, 95% CI: 0.087-0.100), respectively. Nursing homes owned by corporations were 9.796 times more likely to use physical restraints than those owned by local governments (OR: 9.796, 95% CI: 1.473-65.158). Therefore, improving nurses' work environment and introducing regulations and education that enable the entrusted doctors or nurses to make decisions regarding restraint use, monitoring, and removal, regardless of nursing home ownership type, are necessary.

Physical restraints in nursing homes: A qualitative study with multiple stakeholders

AIM

This study aims to understand the perceptions regarding physical restraints of the elder-care professional's stakeholders.

DESIGN

A qualitative methodology was employed.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenient sample of 19 participants, which included nursing homes' managers, nurses and physicians; law, ethics, quality or patient rights' protection experts in care and public servers with responsibilities in the field. The data were collected, recorded and verbatim transcribed. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged: the use of restraints, organizational issues and regulation. Although professionals involved in nursing care agree that improvements have been made, they highlight the negative impact of restraints and the need for a change in culture about their use. Yet, they have concerns about the 'zero restraints' feasibility, with divergent views on the need for a stronger regulatory framework.

Mechanical Restraint in Inpatient Psychiatric Unit: Prevalence and Associated Clinical Variables

Background and Objectives: mechanical restraint (MR) is a controversial issue in emergency psychiatry and should be better studied to implement other alternative therapeutic interventions. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of MR in an Italian psychiatric unit and identify the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as the pharmacological pattern associated with MR. Materials and Methods: all subjects (N = 799) consecutively admitted to an Italian psychiatric inpatient unit were recruited. Several sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. Results: The prevalence of MR was 14.1%. Males, a younger age, and a single and migrant status were associated with the MR phenomenon. MR was more prevalent in patients affected by other diagnoses and comorbid illicit substance use, in patients with aggressive behaviors, and those that were involuntary admitted, leading significantly to hospitalization over 21 days. Furthermore, the patients that underwent MR were taking a lower number of psychiatric medications. Conclusions: Unfortunately, MR is still used in emergency psychiatry. Future research should focus on the dynamics of MR development in psychiatry, specifically considering ward- and staff-related factors that could help identify a more precise prevention and alternative intervention strategies.

Physical restraint in older people: a statement from the Early Career Network of the International Psychogeriatric Association

The International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) has expressed significant concerns over the use of physical restraints in older people across diverse aged care settings. Following an extensive analysis of the available literature, the IPA's Early Career Network (ECN) has formulated a collection of evidence-based recommendations aimed at guiding the use of physical restraints within various care contexts and demographic groups. Physical restraints not only infringe upon human rights but also raise significant safety concerns that adversely impact the physical, psychological, social, and functional well-being of older adults. Furthermore, their effectiveness in geriatric settings remains inadequate. Given these considerations, the IPA and its ECN firmly assert that the use of physical restraints should only be considered as a final recourse in the care of older people.

Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints for older people in all long-term care settings

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints (PR), such as bedrails and belts in chairs or beds, are commonly used for older people receiving long-term care, despite clear evidence for the lack of effectiveness and safety, and widespread recommendations that their use should be avoided. This systematic review of the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraints outside hospital settings, i.e. in care homes and the community, updates our previous review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of interventions to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraints for older people who require long-term care (either at home or in residential care facilities) SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, on 3 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that investigated the effects of interventions intended to prevent or reduce the use of physical restraints in older people who require long-term care. Studies conducted in residential care institutions or in the community, including patients' homes, were eligible for inclusion. We assigned all included interventions to categories based on their mechanisms and components.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the publications for inclusion, extracted study data, and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. Primary outcomes were the number or proportion of people with at least one physical restraint, and serious adverse events related to PR use, such as death or serious injuries. We performed meta-analyses if necessary data were available. If meta-analyses were not feasible, we reported results narratively. We used GRADE methods to describe the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six new studies and included 11 studies with 19,003 participants in this review update. All studies were conducted in long-term residential care facilities. Ten studies were RCTs and one study a CCT. All studies included people with dementia. The mean age of the participants was approximately 85 years. Four studies investigated organisational interventions aiming to implement a least-restraint policy; six studies investigated simple educational interventions; and one study tested an intervention that provided staff with information about residents' fall risk. The control groups received usual care only in most studies although, in two studies, additional information materials about physical restraint reduction were provided. We judged the risk of selection bias to be high or unclear in eight studies. Risk of reporting bias was high in one study and unclear in eight studies. The organisational interventions intended to promote a least-restraint policy included a variety of components, such as education of staff, training of 'champions' of low-restraint practice, and components which aimed to facilitate a change in institutional policies and culture of care. We found moderate-certainty evidence that organisational interventions aimed at implementation of a least-restraint policy probably lead to a reduction in the number of residents with at least one use of PR (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; 3849 participants, 4 studies) and a large reduction in the number of residents with at least one use of a belt for restraint (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73; 2711 participants, 3 studies). No adverse events occurred in the one study which reported this outcome. There was evidence from one study that organisational interventions probably reduce the duration of physical restraint use. We found that the interventions may have little or no effect on the number of falls or fall-related injuries (low-certainty evidence) and probably have little or no effect on the number of prescribed psychotropic medications (moderate-certainty evidence). One study found that organisational interventions result in little or no difference in quality of life (high-certainty evidence) and another study found that they may make little or no difference to agitation (low-certainty evidence). The simple educational interventions were intended to increase knowledge and change staff attitudes towards PR. As well as providing education, some interventions included further components to support change, such as ward-based guidance. We found pronounced between-group baseline imbalances in PR prevalence in some of the studies, which might have occurred because of the small number of clusters in the intervention and control groups. One study did not assess bedrails, which is the most commonly used method of restraint in nursing homes. Regarding the number of residents with at least one restraint, the results were inconsistent. We found very-low certainty evidence and we are uncertain about the effects of simple educational interventions on the number of residents with PR. None of the studies assessed or reported any serious adverse events. We found moderate-certainty evidence that simple educational interventions probably result in little or no difference in restraint intensity and may have little or no effect on falls, fall-related injuries, or agitation (low-certainty evidence each). Based on very low-certainty evidence we are uncertain about the effects of simple educational interventions on the number of participants with a prescription of at least one psychotropic medication. One study investigated an intervention that provided information about residents' fall risk to the nursing staff. We found low-certainty evidence that providing information about residents' fall risk may result in little or no difference in the mean number of PR or the number of falls. The study did not assess overall adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Organisational interventions aimed to implement a least-restraint policy probably reduce the number of residents with at least one PR and probably largely reduce the number of residents with at least one belt. We are uncertain whether simple educational interventions reduce the use of physical restraints, and interventions providing information about residents' fall risk may result in little to no difference in the use of physical restraints. These results apply to long-term care institutions; we found no studies from community settings.

A Risk Prediction Model for Physical Restraints Among Older Chinese Adults in Long-term Care Facilities: Machine Learning Study

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have identified risk factors for physical restraint (PR) use in older adults in long-term care facilities. Nevertheless, there is a lack of predictive tools to identify high-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop machine learning (ML)-based models to predict the risk of PR in older adults.

METHODS

This study conducted a cross-sectional secondary data analysis based on 1026 older adults from 6 long-term care facilities in Chongqing, China, from July 2019 to November 2019. The primary outcome was the use of PR (yes or no), identified by 2 collectors' direct observation. A total of 15 candidate predictors (older adults' demographic and clinical factors) that could be commonly and easily collected from clinical practice were used to build 9 independent ML models: Gaussian Naïve Bayesian (GNB), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), decision tree (DT), logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), multilayer perceptron (MLP), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and light gradient boosting machine (Lightgbm), as well as stacking ensemble ML. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, an F score, a comprehensive evaluation indicator (CEI) weighed by the above indicators, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). A net benefit approach using the decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to evaluate the clinical utility of the best model. Models were tested via 10-fold cross-validation. Feature importance was interpreted using Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP).

RESULTS

A total of 1026 older adults (mean 83.5, SD 7.6 years; n=586, 57.1% male older adults) and 265 restrained older adults were included in the study. All ML models performed well, with an AUC above 0.905 and an F score above 0.900. The 2 best independent models are RF (AUC 0.938, 95% CI 0.914-0.947) and SVM (AUC 0.949, 95% CI 0.911-0.953). The DCA demonstrated that the RF model displayed better clinical utility than other models. The stacking model combined with SVM, RF, and MLP performed best with AUC (0.950) and CEI (0.943) values, as well as the DCA curve indicated the best clinical utility. The SHAP plots demonstrated that the significant contributors to model performance were related to cognitive impairment, care dependency, mobility decline, physical agitation, and an indwelling tube.

CONCLUSIONS

The RF and stacking models had high performance and clinical utility. ML prediction models for predicting the probability of PR in older adults could offer clinical screening and decision support, which could help medical staff in the early identification and PR management of older adults.

Comparative Risk of Harm Associated with Zopiclone or Trazodone Use in Nursing Home Residents: a Retrospective Cohort Study in Alberta, Canada

Background

There is growing evidence of harm associated with trazodone and nonbenzodiazepine sedative hypnotics (e.g., zopiclone); however, their comparative risk of harm is unknown.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study with linked health administrative data, which enrolled older (≥66 years old) nursing home residents living in Alberta, Canada, between December 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018; the last follow-up date was June 30, 2019. We compared the rate of injurious falls and major osteoporotic fractures (primary outcome) and all-cause mortality (secondary outcome) within 180 days of first prescription of zopiclone or trazodone with cause-specific hazard models and inverse probability of treatment weights to control for confounding; primary analysis was intention-to-treat and secondary analysis was per-protocol (i.e., residents censored if dispensed the other exposure drug).

Results

Our cohort included 1,403 residents newly dispensed trazodone and 1,599 residents newly dispensed zopiclone. At cohort entry, the mean resident age was 85.7 (standard deviation [SD] 7.4), 61.6% were female, and 81.2% had dementia. New zopiclone use was associated with similar rates of injurious falls and major osteoporotic fractures (intention-to-treat-weighted hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.48; per-protocol-weighted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.60-1.21) and all-cause mortality (intention-to-treat-weighted hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.79-1.16; per-protocol-weighted hazard ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.66-1.23) compared to trazodone.

Conclusions

Zopiclone was associated with a similar rate of injurious falls, major osteoporotic fractures, and all-cause mortality compared to trazodone-suggesting one medication should not be used in lieu of the other. Appropriate prescribing initiatives should also target zopiclone and trazodone.

'Stakeholders are almost always resistant': Australian behaviour support practitioners' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to reducing restrictive practices

A restrictive practice (RP) is defined as a practice or intervention that has the effect of restricting the rights or freedom of movement of a person, and includes physical, mechanical, and chemical restraint, and seclusion. If misused or overused, RPs may present serious human rights infringements. In Australia, behaviour support practitioners who deliver behaviour support funded by the National Disability Insurance Scheme are responsible for developing positive behaviour support plans that aim to reduce and eliminate the use of RPs. At present, little is known about the barriers that behaviour support practitioners experience when attempting to reduce and eliminate the use of RPs and, conversely, what helps (or enables) them to reduce and eliminate RPs. To learn more, we conducted an online survey consisting of two open-ended questions with 109 Australian behaviour support practitioners to identify barriers and enablers. We found that fear and reluctance on the part of stakeholders were often barriers to reducing the use of RPs. However, we found that having time, funding, and resources for training, supervision, other implementation activities, care team collaboration, and data-based decision-making helped overcome barriers. We provide specific recommendations for addressing identified barriers for individual behaviour support practitioners, service provider organisations, and government and regulatory agencies.

Coming to Grips-How Nurses Deal With Restlessness, Confusion, and Physical Restraints on a Neurological/Neurosurgical Ward

Physical restraints are viewed as potentially dangerous objects for patient safety. Contemporary efforts mainly focus on preventing bad outcomes in restraint use, while little attention is paid under what circumstances physical restraints are applied harmlessly. The aim of this research was to understand how physical restraints are used by neurology/neurosurgery ward nurses in relation to the protocol. In ethnographic action research, the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) was used to map and compare physical restraints as part of daily ward care against the protocol of physical restraints. Comparison between protocol and actual practice revealed that dealing with restlessness and confusion is a collective nursing skill vital in dealing with physical restraints, while the protocol failed to account for these aspects. Supporting and maintaining this skillset throughout this and similar nursing teams can prevent future misguided application physical restraints, offering valuable starting point in managing patient safety for these potentially dangerous objects.

"They just did what they usually do": Mistreatment, abuse, and neglect in nursing homes from the perspective of Ministry of Health auditing teams

The aim of this article was to examine how Ministry of Health auditing teams experience quality of care, mistreatment, abuse, and neglect in nursing homes in Israel. The research included four in-depth focus groups consisting of 19 multidisciplinary auditors. The qualitative analysis was encoded in stages with repeated comparisons between individual participants and within groups and led to three main themes: (1) Failure in addressing basic, personal, and social needs of residents in nursing homes; (2) Mistreatment manifested in violation of residents' privacy and human dignity, neglect, and physical harm; (3) Abuse, including psychological, financial, and physical abuse. The findings can be explained by the characteristics of nursing homes as total institutions, as well as perceptions of ageism and de-humanization of the residents. In addition, the findings highlight the importance of the auditing role in monitoring the nursing homes' quality of care and the safety of the residents.

Incidence and type of restrictive practice use in nursing homes in Ireland

Background

Use of restrictive practices (RP) in care settings may sometimes be warranted but can also conflict with human rights. Research to date has focused primarily on physical and chemical RP, however other forms are also used. Better understanding of practice can inform RP reduction. This study describes the incidence of all types of RP use reported from nursing homes in Ireland.

Methods

RP notifications from nursing homes reported in 2020 were extracted from the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland. The primary outcome measurement was the national incidence of use (frequency of RP/occupancy per 1000 residents) of categories and types of RP. Secondary outcome measurements such as percentage of facilities reporting use and quarterly median incidence of use in these facilities were calculated.

Results

Seventy thousand six hundred sixty-three RP uses were notified from 608 facilities (33,219 beds). National incidence of RP use per 1000 residents was, all categories: 2465.1, environmental: 1324.5, physical: 922.5, chemical: 141.1; ‘other’: 77.0. The most frequently used RPs per category were, environmental: door locks; physical: bedrails; chemical (where drug specified): antipsychotics; ‘other’: privacy. 90.5% of nursing homes reported using at least one type of RP in the 12-month period. Quarterly incidence of any RP use in these facilities was median 1.642 (IQR: 0.018 to 18.608) per bed.

Conclusions

Nursing homes in Ireland regularly use RP; only 9.5% reported no RP use in the 12-month period. A wide variety of types of RP were reported. Environmental and ‘other’ (largely psychosocial) RP contributed notably to total RP use and warrant attention alongside the traditional focus on physical and chemical RP. Policy implications include the need for more comprehensive RP definitions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03450-4.

Use of physical restraints and its associated risk factors in the aged care facilities: A multicentre cross-sectional study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the use of physical restraints in aged care facilities(ACFs)and analyse its associated risk factors.

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints have been widely used in ACFs worldwide, but they can cause physical and mental harm to older people. It is important to regulate the use of physical restraint.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional observational and correlational multicentre study.

METHODS

By convenience sampling method, we selected eight ACFs in four representative regions of Hunan province, China, for this study. The ACF-related information was obtained by interviewing the managers and reviewing records. We conducted investigation and observation on the elderly in the ACFs to understand the use of physical restraints at three different times: 9:30-11:30, 16:00-18:00 and 19:30-21:30 on a working day. The STROBE checklist was followed for this cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

This study found that the utilisation rate of physical restraints was 23.2%. The critical risk factors affecting the use of physical restrains include the following: (1) the ratio of nursing staff to the elderly residents; (2)whether there is a dementia care unit at the facility; (3) the number of elderly residents in each room; (4) the elderly residents' age, degree of education, marital status, care dependence and cognitive impairment; (5) whether the elderly has suffered from a stroke or senile dementia; (6) whether the elderly carries medical catheters.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of standardisation in the use of physical restraints in ACFs of central China. Chinese ACFs should develop guidelines and reduction measures to standardise the use of physical restraints, basing on the key factors affecting the use of physical restraints.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The use of physical restraints in ACFs is threatening the safety of the elderly residents. Understanding the implementation of physical restraint in ACFs can provide reference for reducing the use of physical restraint.

Israeli nursing home staff perspectives on challenges to quality care for residents with dementia

This study examines nursing home employees' perspectives concerning barriers to quality care for people with dementia. Data were derived from observations of care units and interviews with forty-one employees, including chief executive officers, social workers, nurses, occupational therapists, activity workers and nursing assistants at five Israeli nursing homes. Residents' behavior was reported as challenging for staff. Physical restraints and psychotropic medication were commonly used to address behavioral challenges, while few staff acknowledged these practices as problematic. Staff complained that some co-workers were insufficiently caring and wages and overall funding were inadequate, resulting in unsatisfactory staffing levels and insufficient activities for residents. Rigid care routines failed to meet resident needs, and staff failed to notice the relationship between care practices and resident behavior. While problems were described concerning multiple aspects of care, the root causes seemed to include the need for additional funding and for greater expertise in dementia care.

Variation of the Occurrence of Physical Restraint Use in the Long-Term Care: A Scoping Review

Physical restraints in the long-term care setting are still commonly used in several countries with a prevalence ranging from 6% to 85%. Trying to have a broad and extensive overlook on the physical restraints use in long-term care is important to design interventions to prevent and/or reduce their use. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to analyze the range of occurrence of physical restraint in nursing homes, long-term care facilities, and psychogeriatric units. Pubmed, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO- databases were searched for studies with concepts about physical restraint use in the European long-term care setting published between 2009 and 2019, along with a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies. Data on study design, data sources, clinical setting and sample characteristics were extracted. A total of 24 studies were included. The median occurrence of physical restraint in the European long-term care setting was still high (26.5%; IQR 16.5% to 38.5%) with a significant variability across the studies. The heterogeneity of data varied according to study design, data sources, clinical setting, physical restraint's definition, and patient characteristics, such as ADLs dependence, presence of dementia and psychoactive drugs prescription.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Restraint Use in Aged Care

Restraint use in Australian residential aged care has been highlighted by the media, and investigated by researchers, government and advocacy bodies. In 2018, the Royal Commission into Aged Care selected ‘Restraint’ as a key focus of inquiry. Subsequently, Federal legislation was passed to ensure restraint is only used in residential aged care services as the ‘last resort’. To inform and develop Government educational resources, we conducted qualitative research to gain greater understanding of the experiences and attitudes of aged care stakeholders around restraint practice. Semi-structured interviews were held with 28 participants, comprising nurses, care staff, physicians, physiotherapists, pharmacists and relatives. Two focus groups were also conducted to ascertain the views of residential and community aged care senior management staff. Data were thematically analyzed using a pragmatic approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Five themes were identified during the study: 1. Understanding of restraint; 2. Support for legislation; 3. Restraint-free environments are not possible; 4. Low-level restraint; 5. Restraint in the community is uncharted. Although most staff, health practitioners and relatives have a basic understanding of restraint, more education is needed at a conceptual level to enable them to identify and avoid restraint practice, particularly ‘low-level’ forms and chemical restraint. There was strong support for the new restraint regulations, but most interviewees admitted they were unsure what the legislation entailed. With regards to resources, stakeholders wanted recognition that there were times when restraint was necessary and advice on what to do in these situations, as opposed to unrealistic aspirations for restraint-free care. Stakeholders reported greater oversight of restraint in residential aged care but specified that community restraint use was largely unknown. Research is needed to investigate the extent and types of restraint practice in community aged care.

Definition and Measurement of Physical and Chemical Restraint in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to identify thematic elements within definitions of physical and chemical restraint, compare explicit and implicit definitions, and synthesize reliability and validity of studies examining physical and/or chemical restraint use in long-term care. Studies were included that measured prevalence of physical and/or chemical restraint use, or evaluated an intervention to reduce restraint use in long-term care. 86 papers were included in this review, all discussed physical restraint use and 20 also discussed chemical restraint use. Seven themes were generated from definitions including: restraint method, setting resident is restrained in, stated intent, resident capacity to remove/control, caveats and exclusions, duration, frequency or number, and consent and resistance. None of the studies reported validity of measurement approaches. Inter-rater reliability was reported in 27 studies examining physical restraint use, and only one study of chemical restraint. Results were compared to an existing consensus definition of physical restraint, which was found to encompass many of the thematic domains found within explicit definitions. However, studies rarely applied measurement approaches that reflected all of the identified themes of definitions. It is necessary for a consensus definition of chemical restraint to be established and for measurement approaches to reflect the elements of definitions.