Using restraints in the elderly because of fear of litigation

Outcomes following physical restraint reduction programs in two acute care hospitals

BACKGROUND

Physical restraint rates can be reduced safely in long term care settings, but the strategies used to prevent wandering, falls, and patient aggression have not been tested for their effectiveness in preventing therapy disruption. A restraint reduction program (RRP) consisting of four core components (administrative, educational, consultative, and feedback) was implemented in 1998-1999 in 14 units at two acute care hospitals in geographically distant cities.

METHODS

The RRP was targeted at units with prevalence rates of > or = 4% for non-intensive care units (non-ICUs) and > or = 25% for ICUs, as well as two additional units. The RRP was implemented by an interdisciplinary team consisting of geriatricians and nurse specialists.

RESULTS

Of the 16,605 admissions to the RRP units, 2,772 cases received RRP consultations. Only six units (four of seven general units and two of six ICUs) demonstrated a relative reduction of > or = 20% in the physical restraint use rate. No increase in secondary outcomes of patient falls and therapy disruptions (patient-initiated discontinuation or dislodgment of therapeutic devices) occurred, injury rates were low, and no deaths occurred as a direct result of either a fall or therapy disruption event.

DISCUSSION

Given the minimal success in the ICU settings, further studies are needed to determine effective nonrestraint strategies for critical care patients. ICU clinicians need to be persuaded of the favorable risk-to-benefit ratio of alternatives to physical restraint before they will change their practice patterns.

SUMMARY

Efforts to identify more effective interventions that match patient needs and to identify non-clinician factors that affect physical restraint use are needed.

Physical and pharmacologic restraints in long-term care facilities

This study examined the effects of education on the attitudes and practices of long-term care staff toward use of restraints. The intervention, a 1-day educational seminar, used a collaborative team of speakers from the Utah Survey Agency and medical professions. Seminar goals were threefold: first, to provide information about best practices for managing behaviors of individuals with dementia in long-term care settings; second, to provide an explanation of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act regulations pertaining to restraint use; and third, to present alternative strategies to link best practice guidelines to the provision of care. Results showed significant changes in participants' attitudes toward use of restraints. Participants reported replicating the seminar for nursing home staff, revisiting facility policies on restraints, and modifying resident care plans.

Restraint-free care: how does a nurse decide?

Decisions by nurses to avoid physical restraint use in older adults is a complex process that requires individualized, comprehensive assessment and creative problem-solving. Institutional and social policy increasingly support a standard of restraint elimination influencing care decisions with frail older adults. It has become clear that the decision to avoid or use physical restraint is influenced as well by nurses' attitude or beliefs about the efficacy of restraint. To further understand how decisions are made to avoid physical restraint, it is important to also explore the degree to which nurses possess knowledge, autonomy, and accountability in this decision-making process. Understanding how decisions are influenced will advance the development of restraint-free care interventions for older adults.

Delirium and physical restraint in the hospitalized elderly

Delirium or acute confusion increase the likelihood of physical restraint use and subsequent harmful physical and psychological effects. Assessment for delirium is presented as a conceptual framework to guide researchers, administrators, and clinicians in developing strategies to decrease the use of physical restraint and to support quality of life for hospitalized older adults.

Reducing the use of physical restraints in nursing homes: will it increase costs?

OBJECTIVES

Reducing the widespread use of physical restraints in nursing homes is a primary goal of the federal nursing home reforms enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. However, some nursing home operators assert that reducing restraint use could be prohibitively expensive, costing payors perhaps as much as $1 billion annually. We investigated whether nursing home residents free from physical restraint require more care and resources than similar residents who are restrained.

METHODS

We examined the major component of nursing home costs--staff time--and its allocation among residents who were physically restrained and those who were not restrained. The multivariate analysis used staff-time-study data on the care of 11,932 nursing home residents in 276 facilities in seven states.

RESULTS

The analyses indicate that, when differences in impairment and care needs are controlled for, residents who are physically restrained require more nursing care than other residents. Higher levels of nursing-assistant time were consistently provided to restrained residents.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents free of restraints are less costly to care for than restrained residents. The 1987 federal requirements concerning restraint use, which are aimed at improving quality of care and quality of life, can be implemented without engendering a major increase in care costs.

Making the transition to restraint-free care

When implementing a change to restraint-free care, education and communication at all levels of the organization are powerful strategies to overcome resistance. Within each facility, there are at least six identifiable groups, with attitudes based on their educational background, life experiences and perceptions that are targets for change. An anonymous attitudinal survey and sensitivity session serve as effective "unfreezing" tools for all levels of staff to express concerns regarding physical restraints and to recognize the need for change. Change requires a slow, methodical system where specific alternatives are gradually introduced. Success with the easier cases encourages staff to continue efforts with more challenging cases.