Predictors of physical restraint use on critical care units: An observational structural equation modeling approach

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce physical restraints in critical care units

Physical restraint use in critical care units is a frequent low-value care practice influenced by numerous factors creating a local culture. The translation of evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice is scarce so, the analysis of interventions to de-adopt this practice is needed. This update aims to describe and identify nonpharmacological interventions that contribute to minimising the use of physical restraints in adult critically ill patients. Interventions are classified into two groups: those that include education alone and those that combine training with one or more components (multicomponent interventions). These components include less restrictive restraint alternatives, use of physical and cognitive stimulation, decision support tools, institutional multidisciplinary committees, and team involvement. The heterogeneity in the design of the programmes and the low quality of the evidence of the interventions do not allow us to establish recommendations on their effectiveness. However, multicomponent interventions including training, physical and cognitive stimulation of the patient and a culture change of professionals and the organisations towards making restraints visible might be the most effective. The implementation of these programmes should underpin on a prior analysis of each local context to design the most effective-tailored combination of interventions to help reduce or eliminate them from clinical practice.

Dignity as a Central Issue in Treating Patients with Dementia Associated with COVID-19 Infection

COVID-19 was initially considered a primary respiratory disorder associated with various short- and long-term complications, affecting many patients and imposing a significant burden. Patients who have dementia are especially vulnerable to the SARS-CoV2 infection, which is associated with an increased risk for neuropsychiatric complications. These patients need a unique approach to managing ethical issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including autonomy, veracity, non-maleficence, justice, compassion, and dignity. The latter is one of the most elusive and misunderstood concepts in medical ethics and is extremely important in debates surrounding the proper management of patients with dementia. However, it is often left out of ethical analysis, as most clinicians, when debating issues associated with clinical practice, often evaluate only the "classical" principles of biomedical ethics. In this article, we aim to assess the unique features of dignity in treating this group of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will briefly analyze dignity as a bioethical concept. We will further explore its principal axes, namely compassion, creating a humane and purposeful environment, employing persuasion to meet the person's essential needs, exerting a certain degree of mild restraint to meet the person's critical needs, minimizing harm in terminal care, and justice, through the lens of people who had dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying this principle in clinical practice requires significant commitment from all healthcare workers. New approaches to the analysis of dignity, such as through the Ring Theory of Personhood, may facilitate its understanding by practitioners and aid its implementation in populations with multiple vulnerabilities, such as dementia patients, during an infectious outbreak that generates significant social and medical changes.

Chemical and physical restraint use during acute care hospitalization of older adults: A retrospective cohort study and time series analysis

Background

Chemical and physical restraints are associated with harm in older adults, but our understanding of their use during acute care hospitalizations is limited.

Objectives

To (1) describe restraint use during acute care hospitalizations of older adults at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels and (2) describe between-hospital variability in restraint use.

Design

Retrospective cohort study with a time series analysis.

Participants

Acute care hospital inpatients, aged 65 years or older, who were discharged from one of four Alberta hospitals or six Ontario hospitals in Canada, between November 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020.

Main measures

We used autoregressive linear models with restricted cubic splines to compare proportions of chemical restraint (that is, psychotropic medications, namely antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and trazodone) and physical restraint (e.g., mittens) use immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic with pre-pandemic levels. We describe between-hospital variability in restraint use using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and median odds ratios (OR).

Key results

We included 71,004 hospitalizations. Adjusted for the prevalence of dementia and psychotic disorders, chemical restraint use increased in Ontario hospitals from a pre-pandemic average of 27.1% to 30.8% (p<0.001) before returning to pre-pandemic levels within eight weeks. Physical restraint orders in Ontario increased from 5.9% to 8.3% (p = 0.012) and remained elevated at eight weeks. No significant changes in restraint use were observed in Alberta. There was moderate between-hospital variability in chemical restraint use (ICC 0.041 and median OR 1.43). Variability in physical restraint use was higher (ICC 0.11 and median OR 1.83).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted in-hospital use of chemical and physical restraints among older adults in Ontario but not Alberta. Substantial differences in chemical and physical restraint use by region and hospital suggests there are opportunities to improve best practices in geriatric care. Future research must support implementation of evidence-informed interventions that standardize appropriate restraint use.

Why are physical restraints still in use? A qualitative descriptive study from Chinese critical care clinicians' perspectives

OBJECTIVES

To understand why critical care clinicians still implement physical restraints, to prevent unplanned extubation and to explore the driving factors influencing the decision-making of physical restraints use.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive design was used. The data were collected through one-to-one, semistructured interviews and analysed through the framework of thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

The study was conducted from December 2019 to May 2020 at one general intensive care unit (ICU) and one emergency ICU in a general tertiary hospital with 3200 beds in Hangzhou, China. The sampling strategy was combined maximum variation sampling and criterion sampling.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians participated in the study. The reason why critical care clinicians implemented physical restraints to prevent unplanned extubation was that the tense healthcare climate was caused by family members' rejection of mismatched expectations. As unplanned extubation was highly likely to create medical disputes, hospitals placed excessive emphasis on unplanned extubation, which resulted in a lack of analysis of the cause of unplanned extubation and strict measures for dealing with unplanned extubation. The shortage of nursing human resources, unsuitable ward environments, intensivists' attitudes, timely extubation for intensivists, nurse experiences and the patient's possibility of unplanned extubation all contributed to the decision-making resulting in the use of physical restraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Although nurses played a crucial role in the decision-making process of using physical restraints, changing the healthcare climate and the hospital management mode for unplanned extubation are fundamental measures to reduce physical restraints use.