Use of restraints and bedrails in a British hospital

Incidence Rate and Patterns of Physical Restraint Use Among Adult Patients in Malaysia

Incidence rate and patterns of physical restraint use were examined based on a cross-sectional study in 22 wards of a large teaching hospital in Malaysia. Results indicated that the highest rate of physical restraint (19.7%) was reported from neurology-neurosurgery wards. "Un-cooperative for electroconvulsive therapy" and "trying to pull out catheters" were the most commonly reported reasons to use restraint in psychiatric and non-psychiatric wards, respectively. There were some relationships between patterns of physical restraint in this study. Exploring the incidence rate and patterns of physical restraint is important so that effective strategies can be formulated to minimize using restraint in hospitals.

Outcomes of nighttime physical restraint removal for severely impaired nursing home residents

There is ample evidence that physical restraint reduction does not lead to increased falls or injuries. This study tests the effect of removing nighttime restraints by comparing two groups: Restrained in bed at pre- but not postintervention (n = 51), or restrained in bed at both pre- and post-intervention (n = 11). No differences in nighttime fall rates between the two groups were detected.

Nighttime physical restraint removal does not lead to increases in falls from bed in older nursing home residents. Although markedly reduced in nursing homes, restraint use remains a common practice among hospitalized older adults. We should continue to focus efforts on developing new, individualized approaches to reduce risk of falling from bed among frail elders.

Prevalence and predictors of bedrail use in an acute hospital

OBJECTIVE

to determine the prevalence and predictors of bedrail use in an acute hospital.

DESIGN AND SETTING

overnight survey in a University teaching hospital.

SUBJECTS

Three-hundred and twenty-seven beds and patients in 14 wards.

METHODS

data were collected on bedrail use and on the bed system, ward and patient characteristics. Medical, nursing and physical therapy notes were examined and the night and day nurses and, if necessary, the doctors and therapists caring for the patient interviewed to determine patients' diagnoses, functional and cognitive status.

RESULTS

there were 133 (40.7%) beds with one or more raised rails. Independent predictors of bedrail use were use of electric profiling beds, confusion, reduced alertness and any difficulty with transferring from bed. The most common reported indication for bedrail use was 'to prevent rolling out of bed' (59%); 'to prevent getting out of bed' was recorded in 11% of cases. Use of bedrails was judged inappropriate in 27/133 (20.3%) patients and in 14/43 (32.6%) patients with abnormal mental status; misuse was particularly common in those with confusion or agitation [13/34 (38.2%)]. Failure to use bedrails was potentially inappropriate in 32/194 (16.5%) of those without bedrails.

CONCLUSION

this study using individual patient data shows that the use of electric profiling beds, abnormal mental states and difficulty transferring from bed are the main predictors of bedrail use in acute hospitals. Inappropriate use of bedrails is common in those with cognitive impairment or with agitation.

Which bed designs and patient characteristics increase bed rail use?

BACKGROUND

the design and use of bed rails has been contentious since the 1950s with benefits including safety, mobility support and access to bed controls and disadvantages associated with entrapment and restraint.

OBJECTIVE

to explore which bed designs and patient characteristics (mobility, cognitive status and age) influence the likelihood of rails being used on UK medical wards.

METHOD

the use of rails was surveyed overnight at 18 hospitals between July 2010 and February 2011.

RESULTS

data were collected on 2,219 beds with 1,799 included (occupied). Eighty-six percent had rails attached; 52% had raised rails (42% had all raised). Adjusted logistic regression results suggest a significantly increased likelihood of rail use for (i) electric profiling beds and ultra low beds; (ii) >80 years; (iii) described as having any level of confusion or mobility impairment. These variables together explained 55% of the variance in rail use. The most frequently mentioned reason for raising rails was 'to prevent falls from the bed' (61%) especially for patients described as confused (75%).

CONCLUSION

there were indications that rails were being used inappropriately (as a restraint) for both confused patients and those needing assistance to mobilise.

Interventions designed to prevent healthcare bed-related injuries in patients

BACKGROUND

Every patient in residential healthcare has a bed. Falling out of bed is associated with preventable patient harm. Various interventions to prevent injury are available. Bed rails are the most common intervention designed to prevent patients falling out of bed; however, their effectiveness is uncertain and bed rail entrapment can also result in injuries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent patient injuries and falls from their beds.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2010, Issue 2 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), ISOI Web of Science and Web-based trials registers (all to December 2010) as well as reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions designed to prevent patient injuries from their beds which were conducted in hospitals, nursing care facilities or rehabilitation units were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. Authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 22,106 participants. One study tested low height beds and the other tested bed exit alarms. Both studies used standard care for their control group and both studies were conducted in hospitals. No study investigating bed rails met the inclusion criteria. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions in the included studies pooling of data and meta-analysis was inappropriate, and so the results of the studies are described.A single cluster randomised trial of low height beds in 18 hospital wards, including 22,036 participants, found no significant reduction in the frequency of patient injuries due to their beds (there were no injuries in either group), patient falls in the bedroom (rate ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.34), all falls (rate ratio 1.26, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.90) or patient injuries due to all falls (rate ratio 1.35, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.68).One randomised controlled trial of bed exit alarms in one hospital geriatric ward, involving 70 participants, found no significant reduction in the frequency of patient injuries due to their beds (there were no injuries in either group), patient falls out of bed (rate ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.24), all falls (rate ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18) or patient injuries due to all falls (no injuries in either group).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent patient injuries from their beds (including bed rails, low height beds and bed exit alarms) remains uncertain. The available evidence shows no significant increase or decrease in the rate of injuries with the use of low height beds and bed exit alarms. Limitations of the two included studies include lack of blinding and insufficient power. No randomised controlled trials of bed rails were identified. Future reports should fully describe the standard care received by the control group.

Interventions designed to prevent healthcare bed-related injuries in patients

BACKGROUND

Every patient in residential healthcare has a bed. Falling out of bed is associated with preventable patient harm. Various interventions to prevent injury are available. Bed rails are the most common intervention designed to prevent patients falling out of bed; however, their effectiveness is uncertain and bed rail entrapment can also result in injuries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent patient injuries and falls from their beds.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2010, Issue 2 (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), ISOI Web of Science and Web-based trials registers (all to December 2010) as well as reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions designed to prevent patient injuries from their beds which were conducted in hospitals, nursing care facilities or rehabilitation units were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. Authors contacted investigators to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 22,106 participants. One study tested low height beds and the other tested bed exit alarms. Both studies used standard care for their control group and both studies were conducted in hospitals. No study investigating bed rails met the inclusion criteria. Due to the clinical heterogeneity of the interventions in the included studies pooling of data and meta-analysis was inappropriate, and so the results of the studies are described.A single cluster randomised trial of low height beds in 18 hospital wards, including 22,036 participants, found no significant reduction in the frequency of patient injuries due to their beds (there were no injuries in either group), patient falls in the bedroom (rate ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.34), all falls (rate ratio 1.26, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.90) or patient injuries due to all falls (rate ratio 1.35, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.68).One randomised controlled trial of bed exit alarms in one hospital geriatric ward, involving 70 participants, found no significant reduction in the frequency of patient injuries due to their beds (there were no injuries in either group), patient falls out of bed (rate ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.24), all falls (rate ratio 0.42, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18) or patient injuries due to all falls (no injuries in either group).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent patient injuries from their beds (including bed rails, low height beds and bed exit alarms) remains uncertain. The available evidence shows no significant increase or decrease in the rate of injuries with the use of low height beds and bed exit alarms. Limitations of the two included studies include lack of blinding and insufficient power. No randomised controlled trials of bed rails were identified. Future reports should fully describe the standard care received by the control group.

Physical restraint use and falls in nursing homes: a comparison between residents with and without dementia

AIMS

To estimate the use of different types of physical restraints and assess their associations to falls and injuries among residents with and without Alzheimer's disease (AD) or dementia in US nursing homes.

METHODS

Data were from the 2004 National Nursing Home Survey. AD or dementia was identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. Analyses were conducted with the Surveyfreq and Surveylogistic procedures in SAS v.9.1.

RESULTS

Residents with either AD or dementia were more likely to be physically restrained (9.99% vs 3.91%, P < .001) and less likely to have bed rails (35.06% vs 38.43%, P < .001) than those residents without the disease. The use of trunk restraints was associated with higher risk for falls (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.66, P < .001) and fractures (AOR = 2.77, P < .01) among residents with the disease. The use of full bed rails was associated with lower risk for falls among residents with and without the disease (AOR = 0.67 and AOR = 0.72, Ps < .05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a trunk restraint is associated with a higher risk for falls and fractures among residents with either AD or dementia.

Programme d'intervention visant à réduire l'utilisation des contentions physiques dans des unités de soins de longue durée — mise en oeuvre et effets sur le personnel soignant

This study aimed at (a) developing a restraint reduction program, (b) describing its implementation in long-term care units, and (c) examining its effects on care staff's perceptions of and knowledge about the use of restraints. The program was composed of three parts: consciousness-raising meetings, staff education, and clinical follow-up. The study was a randomized, controlled clinical trial with eight intervention care units (five nursing homes) and 11 controls (five additional nursing homes). Care staff was surveyed at two time intervals over a 7-month period (pre- and post-test intervention; intervention care units: N = 171 [T0] and N = 158 [T1]; controls: N = 181 [T0] and N = 166 [T1]). The implementation of the program was successful and results showed significant changes in care staff perceptions of and knowledge about the use of restraints.

Bed and Toilet Height as Potential Environmental Risk Factors

Seat height that is too high (> 120% of lower leg length [LLL]) or too low (< 80% of LLL) can impede safe transfer and result in falls. This study examines the difference between LLL of frail nursing home residents and the height of their toilets and beds in the lowest position, compares the patient or environmental characteristics of those able to transfer from the bed or toilet to those who cannot, and determines the relationship of patient or environmental characteristics to bed-related falls. A retrospective observational design using secondary data from 263 nursing home residents finds that bed height of three fourths of participants was greater than 140% of LLL, whereas toilet height of more than half was 100% to 120% of LLL. Increased fall risk is associated with increased age, shorter length of stay, normal lower extremity range of motion, less cognitive impairment, more behavioral symptoms, and no complaints of pain during exam.

Barriers to mobility during hospitalization from the perspectives of older patients and their nurses and physicians

BACKGROUND

Low mobility is common during hospitalization and is associated with adverse outcomes. Understanding barriers to the maintenance or improvement of mobility is important to the development of successful interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To identify barriers to mobility during hospitalization from the perspectives of older patients and their primary nurses and physicians, to compare and contrast the perceived barriers among these groups, and to make a conceptual model.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews analyzed and interpreted using a grounded theory approach.

SETTING

Medical wards of a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-nine participants--10 patients >or= 75 years, 10 nurses, and 9 resident physicians.

MEASUREMENTS

Participants were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide, with similar questions for patients and health care providers. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and reviewed for common themes by independent reviewers. Perceived barriers to mobility were identified, and their nature and frequency were examined for each respondent group.

RESULTS

Content analysis identified 31 perceived barriers to increased mobility during hospitalization. Barriers most frequently described by all 3 groups were: having symptoms (97%), especially weakness (59%), pain (55%), and fatigue (34%); having an intravenous line (69%) or urinary catheter (59%); and being concerned about falls (79%). Lack of staff to assist with out-of-bed activity was mentioned by patients (20%), nurses (70%), and physicians (67%). Unlike patients, health care providers attributed low mobility among hospitalized older adults to lack of patient motivation and lack of ambulatory devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing and understanding perceived barriers to mobility during hospitalization of older patients is an important first step toward developing successful interventions to minimize low mobility.

Consequences of an intervention to reduce restrictive side rail use in nursing homes

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of an advanced practice nurse (APN) intervention on restrictive side rail usage in four nursing homes and with a sample of 251 residents. A secondary question explored the association between restrictive side rail reduction and bed-related falls.

DESIGN

Pre- and posttest design.

SETTING

Four urban nursing homes.

PARTICIPANTS

All nursing home residents present in the nursing home at three time points (n=710, 719, and 707) and a subset of residents (n=251) with restrictive side rail use at baseline.

INTERVENTION

APN consultation with individual residents and facility-wide education and consultation.

MEASUREMENTS

Direct observation of side rail status, resident and nurse interview for functional status, mobility, cognition, behavioral symptoms, medical record review for demographics and treatment information, and incident reports for fall data.

RESULTS

At the institutional level, one of the four nursing homes significantly reduced restrictive side rail use (P=.01). At the individual participant level, 51.4% (n=130) reduced restrictive side rail use. For the group that reduced restrictive side rails, there was a significantly (P<.001) reduced fall rate (-0.053; 95% confidence interval (CI)=-0.083 to -0.024), whereas the group that continued restrictive side rail did not demonstrate a significantly (P=.17) reduced fall rate (-0.013; 95% CI=-0.056-0.030).

CONCLUSION

An APN consultation model can safely reduce side rail use. Restrictive side rail reduction does not lead to an increase in bed-related falls. Although side rails serve many purposes, routine use of these devices to restrict voluntary movement and prevent falls is not supported.

Prevalence and Variation of Physical Restraint Use in Acute Care Settings in the US

PURPOSE

To describe physical restraint (PR) rates and contexts in U.S. hospitals.

DESIGN

This 2003-2005 descriptive study was done to measure PR prevalence and contexts (census, gender, age, ventilation status, PR type, and rationale) at 40 randomly selected acute care hospitals in six U.S. metropolitan areas. All units except psychiatric, emergency, operative, obstetric, and long-term care were included.

METHODS

On 18 randomly selected days between 0500 and 0700 (5:00 am and 7:00 am), data collectors determined PR use and contexts via observation and nurse report.

FINDINGS

PR prevalence was 50 per 1,000 patient days (based on 155,412 patient days). Preventing disruption of therapy was the chief reason cited. PR rates varied by unit type, with adult ICU rates the highest obtained. Intra- and interinstitutional variation was as high as 10-fold. Ventilator use was strongly associated with PR use. Elderly patients were over-represented among the physically restrained on some units (e.g., medical) but on many unit types (including most ICUs) their PR use was consistent with those of other adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Wide rate variation indicates the need to examine administratively mediated variables and the promotion of unit-based improvement efforts. Anesthetic and sedation practices have contributed to high variation in ICU PR rates. Determining the types of units to target to achieve improvements in care of older adults requires study of PR sequelae rate by unit type.

Does access to bed-chair pressure sensors reduce physical restraint use in the rehabilitative care setting?

BACKGROUND

The common use of physical restraints in older people in hospitals and nursing homes has been associated with injurious falls, decreased mobility and disorientation. By offering access to bed-chair pressure sensors in hospitalized patients with perceived fall risk, nurses may be less inclined to resort to physical restraints, thereby improving clinical outcomes.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the access of bed-chair pressure sensors reduces physical restraint use in geriatric rehabilitation wards.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Consecutively, patients admitted to two geriatric wards specialized in stroke rehabilitation in a convalescent hospital in Hong Kong, and who were perceived by nurses to be at risk of falls were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. For the intervention group subjects, nurses were given access to bed-chair pressure sensors. These sensors were not available to control group subjects, as in usual practice. The trial continued until discharge. The primary outcomes were the proportion of subjects restrained by trunk restraint, bedrails or chair-board and the proportion of trial days in which each type of physical restraint was applied. The secondary outcomes were the proportions of those who improved in the mobility and transfer domains of modified Barthel index on discharge and of those who fell.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty subjects were randomized. Fifty (55.6%) out of the 90 intervention group subjects received the intervention. There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the proportions and duration of having the three types of physical restraints. There was also no group difference in the chance of improving in mobility and transfer ability, and of having a fall.

CONCLUSION

Access to bed-chair pressure sensor device neither reduced the use of physical restraints nor improved the clinical outcomes of older patients with perceived fall risk.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The provision of bed-chair pressure sensors may only be effective in reducing physical restraints when it is combined with an organized physical restraint reduction programme.

A review of environmental hazards associated with in-patient falls

Slips, trips and falls present the greatest risk to in-patients in terms of exposure (frequency of occurrence) but only present a low severity risk in terms of mortality. The risk factors have been categorized as intrinsic (individual to the patient, e.g. visual impairment, balance problems and medicine use) or extrinsic (environmental). Many recommendations have been made concerning the management of environmental hazards but, of these, only beds rails have supporting research evidence. Other recommendations include patient assessment, footwear, flooring, lighting, staffing levels and bed alarms. However, three systematic reviews and the current narrative review have all failed to find research evaluating the benefits of these recommendations. The most robust evidence relates to the use of bed rails. This research suggests that bed rails not only fail to reduce the frequency of falls, but may also exacerbate the severity of injury. As Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs model has been used as a framework for nursing models of care, it was chosen as the basis for the development of an environmental hazard assessment model. The environmental hazards are revisited using this model in order to take an ergonomic or patient-centred approach for risk assessment.

Use of Physical Restraints in Adult Critical Care: A Bicultural Study

• Background Although controversial, physical restraints are commonly used in adult critical care units in the United States to prevent treatment interference and self-inflicted harm. Use of physical restraints in Norwegian hospitals is very limited. In the United States, an experimental design for research on use of restraints has not seemed feasible. However, international research provides an opportunity to compare and contrast practices.

• Objectives To describe the relationship between patients’ characteristics, environment, and use of physical restraints in the United States and Norway.

• Methods Observations of patients and chart data were collected from 2 intensive care units (n = 50 patients) in Norway and 3 (n = 50 patients) in the United States. Sedation was measured by using the Sedation-Agitation Scale. The Nine Equivalents of Nursing Manpower Use Score was used to indicate patients’ acuity level.

• Results Restraints were in use in 39 of 100 observations in the United States and not at all in Norway (P = .001). Categories of patients were balanced. In the Norwegian sample, the median Nine Equivalents of Nursing Manpower Use Score was higher (37 vs 27 points, P &lt; .001), patients were more sedated (P &lt; .001), and nurse-to-patient ratios were higher (1.05:1 vs 0.65:1, P &lt; .001). Seven incidents of unplanned device removal were reported in the US sample.

• Conclusions Critical care units with similar technology and characteristics of patients vary between nations in restraint practices, levels of sedation, and nurse-to-patient ratios. Restraint-free care was, in this sample, safe in terms of treatment interference.

Minimizing the use of restrictive devices in dementia patients at risk for falling

The accumulating empirical evidence demonstrates that restrictive devices can be removed without negative consequences. Most importantly, use of nonrestrictive measures has been correlated with positive patient outcomes and represents care that is dignified and safe for confused elders. Most of these nonrestrictive approaches promote mobility and functional recovery; however, testing of individual interventions is needed to further the science. As the research regarding restrictive devices has been translated into professional guidelines and regulatory standards, the prevalence of usage has declined dramatically. New institutional models of care discouraging routine use of restrictive devices also will foster innovative solutions to clinical problems associated with dementia.

Use of restraints on dementia patients: an ethical dilemma of a nursing staff in Israel

This quality improvement project investigates the ethical dilemmas faced by nursing staff (ie, registered nurses, practical nurses, and nurse aids) using restraints for dementia patients in "realistic" and "idealistic" situations.

RATIONALE

There is a need to offer adequate care for a growing number of patients suffering from dementia and to ensure their safety. Restraints are a common practice for this purpose; however, they may inflict harm and contradict patient rights of freedom, autonomy, and respect. The issue becomes more complex in view of the multiple studies showing that the various justifications for using restraints are often based on caregiver interests and institutional considerations rather than on the patient's benefit.

DESIGN

The project was conducted on a sample of 200 Israeli nursing staff members, half from internal medicine wards of 3 hospitals and the other half from 3 psychogeriatric nursing homes, all treating dementia patients. The project used a questionnaire composed of demographic data and an ethical preference questionnaire built on 18 situations concerning restraints. Situations were categorized into 3 purposes: (a) patient's benefit, (b) other patients' benefit, and (c) institutional benefit. These situations referred to realistic (ie, expressing views of daily practice) and idealistic (ie, expressing personal and professional beliefs and values) situations.

RESULTS

The project exposes a discrepancy between the manner in which the nursing staff perceive use of restraints in an idealistic situation and in a realistic situation and the greater tendency to use restraints in the realistic situation than in the idealistic situation. The main contribution of the project is in revealing the conflict between the personal beliefs of the nursing staff and the nurses' perceptions of their institutional obligations.

CONCLUSIONS

The project uncovered a discrepancy among the beliefs, the personal and professional values of the nursing staff, and their perception regarding the actual use of restraints in the daily work routine.

Physical restraint use in a Korean ICU

This descriptive study investigated the patterns of use of physical restraints in a Korean Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with the aim of identifying the factors that would best discriminate the times of application and removal of restraints in the same patients. The subjects of the study were 23 physically restrained patients out of 51 patients who were admitted to a medical ICU in a university hospital admitted during a 6-week period, and the 29 nurses who applied or removed the restraints. Ninety-four incidents of restraint application and removal on the 23 patients were analysed. Data were collected using a self-reporting questionnaire of attitudes towards restraint application for nurses, restraint document sheets, ICU flowsheets and patient chart reviews. Restraint-related patient data were collected on a restraint document sheet by the nurse in charge at each instance of application and removal of restraint. The most common type of restraint was the bilateral wrist restraint. The mean number of restraint applications per patient was 3.62 +/- 3.56 (mean +/- SD), and the mean restrained period per incident was 22.64 +/- 58 hours. There were no significant differences in the frequency of restraint use during the day, evening and night shifts. The most significant discriminators for restraint application and removal were the restless-behaviour score and the presence of a nasogastric tube - the classification accuracy by these two factors was 70.2%. More than 90% of the decisions to apply restraints were made by nurses. Nurses reported that preventing the patient from removing medical devices (48.6%) was the primary reason for application, and improvement of cognitive status (29.3%) was the primary reason for removal of restraint. In conclusion, as the most discriminating factor of application or removal of restraints was the patient's restless behaviour, providing nurses with tools for the accurate evaluation of patient restlessness will shorten restraint application periods in ICUs.

A synthesis of what we know about the use of physical restraints and seclusion with patients in psychiatric and acute care settings: 2003 update

PURPOSE

This article is an update of the January 19, 2000, Volume 7, Number 2 article of the synthesis of research findings on the use of restraint and seclusion with patients in psychiatric and acute care settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The little that is known about restraint/seclusion use with these populations is inconsistent. Attitudes and perceptions of patients, family, and staff differ. However, all patients had very negative feelings about both, whether they were restrained/secluded or observed by others who were not restrained. The reasons for restraint/seclusion use vary with no accurate use rate for either. What precipitates the use of restraint/seclusion also varies, but professionals claim they are necessary to prevent/treat violent or unruly behavior. Some believe seclusion/restraint is effective, but there is no empirical evidence to support this belief. Many less restrictive alternatives have been tested with varying outcomes. Several educational programs to help staff learn about different ways to handle violent/confused patients have been successful.

IMPLICATIONS

Until more is known about restraint/seclusion use from prospective controlled research, the goal to use least restrictive methods must be pursued. More staff educational programs must be offered and the evaluation of alternatives to restraint/seclusion pursued. When seclusion/restraint is necessary, it should be used less arbitrarily, less frequently, and with less trauma. As the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) have prescribed, "Seclusion and restraint must be a last resort, emergency response to a crisis situation that presents imminent risk of harm to the patient, staff, or others" (p. 25) [99A].

Restraint use, restraint orders, and the risk of falls in hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relationship between physical restraints and falls in the acute hospital setting.

DESIGN

Matched case-control study.

SETTING

Inpatients at a 528-bed, urban, community based, acute care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred twenty-eight patients who fell during hospitalization and 228 controls matched to cases by nursing unit and length of stay.

MEASUREMENTS

Persons who fell were systematically evaluated at the time of fall by trained fall evaluators. For the cases, we sought to validate "orders for restraints" using "observed restraint use," defined as the use of restraints at the time of fall as determined through direct observation or interviews with nursing staff.

RESULTS

Patients with orders for restraints were more likely to fall than patients without orders for restraints (multivariate relative risk = 6.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8-22.3). However, in the cases, there was poor correlation between "orders for restraints" and "observed restraint use" at the time of fall (kappa = 0.15, 95% CI-0.4-0.34).

CONCLUSION

Because orders for restraint use may not reflect actual restraint use at the time of a fall, observational studies relating use of restraints to the risk of falls should be interpreted with caution. Despite this caveat, we could find no evidence that restraints protect hospitalize patients from falling.

The use of physical restraints as a safety measure in the care of older people in four rehabilitation wards: findings from an exploratory study

We investigated the prevalence and type of physical restraint used with older persons on four rehabilitation wards in Northern Ireland. A longitudinal observational approach was used. One hundred and two patients were observed on four occasions over a three-day period. Most of the patients (68%) were subjected to some form of physical restraint, side-rails being the most commonly observed method. Those who were restrained were dependent on nursing care to meet their needs and received more drugs than those whose mobility was not restricted. No association was found between restraint use and nursing staffing levels, nor was there any association with the incidence of falls. Nurses rationalised their use of restraint as being linked to wandering and patient protection in cases of confusional type behaviours. An association was found between stroke and the maintenance of positional support through the use of restraints (side-rails and screw-on tabletops). Approximately, one-third of those restrained had this noted in their care plans, with concomitant evidence of patient/family involvement in the restraining decision.

Side rail use and bed-related fall outcomes among nursing home residents

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effect of physical restraint reduction on nighttime side rail use and to examine the relationship between bilateral side rail use and bed-related falls/injuries among nursing home residents.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of data collected in a longitudinal, prospective clinical trial designed to reduce restraint use.

SETTING

Three nonprofit nursing homes.

PARTICIPANTS

To examine the first question regarding the effect of physical restraint reduction on side rail usage, we included all nursing home residents who survived a 1-year data collection period (n = 463). To answer the second research question concerning the relationship between side rail status and bed-related falls, subjects' side rail status for each of the four data collection periods was compared. The sample for this analysis includes only those with consistent side rail status (n = 319) for the four observations periods: either 0/1 side rail (n = 188) or 2 (bilateral) side rails (n = 131).

MEASUREMENTS

Side rail and restraint status was directly observed by two research assistants, twice each night shift (10 p.m.-6 a.m.) for three nights at each of four data collection points. Nighttime fall-related outcome data were obtained from a review of nursing home incident reports during the entire 1-year data collection period (T1 through T4). Cognitive status was measured using the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination. Functional and behavioral status was obtained using subscales of the Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Over a 1-year period, there was an increase in the proportion of bilateral side rail use for all three nursing homes. Based on the multiple logistic regression analysis, there was no indication of a decreased risk of falls or recurrent falls with bilateral side rail use, controlling for cognition and functional and behavioral status (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45,2.03). Similarly, bilateral side rail use did not reduce the risk of recurrent falls, controlling for cognition and functional status (AOR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.33,4.67).

CONCLUSION

Despite high usage of bilateral side rails, they do not appear to significantly reduce the likelihood of falls, recurrent falls, or serious injuries. Bed-related falls remain clinically challenging. The data from this study, coupled with increasing reports of side rail-related injuries and deaths, compel us to seek and empirically test alternative interventions to prevent bed-related falls.

Perceptions of older people who have experienced physical restraint

It is well documented that the use of physical restraints on older people has been linked to negative clinical outcomes. However, less is known about the personal perspective of those who have been restrained. This study examines the perceptions of older people who have experienced physical restraints in a rehabilitation ward. A purposive sample was used of 17 male and female patients who were restrained. The patients were interviewed using the Subjective Experience of Being Restrained instrument (Strumpf and Evans, 1988) which is a semi-structured interview schedule. The most commonly used restraint devices included side rails, screw-on tabletops and reclining chairs. The data were analysed using content analysis. The results indicate mixed feelings regarding physical restraints. Patients' impressions of physical restraints included indifference of the devices to their perceived safety value. Overall, a minority of patients (n = 4) had positive feelings about physical restraints as they provided a sense of security to them. However, the negative comments of the patients were more prevalent and their responses were categorized in terms of institutional control, ritualised care, entrapment and discomfort, and possible alternatives.

Achieving restraint-free care of acutely confused older adults

Restraint-free care has emerged as an indicator of quality care for older adults in all settings. The most difficult challenges to achieving this goal are care of hospitalized older adults who are functionally dependent and cognitively impaired. The purpose of this article is to report findings from a descriptive study of restrained hip fracture patients, and discuss approaches to achieving restraint-free care. Rate of restraint use was 33.2% among hospitalized hip fracture patients during an 11-year period in 20 metropolitan teaching hospitals. Restrained patients were older men who resided in nursing homes prior to hospitalization. Clinically, restrained patients had a diagnosis of dementia, were noted to be confused or disoriented by nursing staff, and were dependent in activities of daily living. An individualized approach to care is the best method to avoid use of physical restraints for patients with acute confusion and cognitive impairment.

Do hospital fall prevention programs work? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To analyze published hospital fall prevention programs to determine whether there is any effect on fall rates. To review the methodological quality of those programs and the range of interventions used. To provide directions for further research.

DESIGN

Systematic review of published hospital fall prevention programs. Meta-analysis.

METHODS

Keyword searches of Medline, CINAHL, monographs, and secondary references. All papers were included that described fall rates before and during intervention. Risk ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) were estimated and random effects meta-analysis employed. Begg's test was applied to detect possible publication bias. Separate meta-analysis regressions were performed to determine whether individual components of multifaceted interventions were effective.

RESULTS

A total of 21 papers met the criteria (18 from North America), although only 10 contained sufficient data to allow calculation of confidence intervals. A rate ratio of <1 indicates a reduction in the fall rate, resulting from an intervention. Three were randomized controlled trials (pooled rate ratio 1.0 (CI 0.60, 1.68)), seven prospective studies with historical control (0.76 (CI 0.65, 0.88)). Pooled effect rate ratio from these 10 studies was 0.79 (CI 0.69, 0.89). The remaining 11 studies were prospective studies with historical control describing fall rates only. Individual components of interventions showed no significant benefit.

DISCUSSION

The pooled effect of about 25% reduction in the fall rate may be a result of intervention but may also be biased by studies that used historical controls not allowing for historical trends in the fall rate before and during the intervention. The randomized controlled trials apparent lack of effect might be due to a change in practice when patients and controls were in the same unit at the same time during a study. Studies did not analyze compliance with the intervention or opportunity costs resulting from the intervention. Research and clinical programs in hospital fall prevention should pay more attention to study design and the nature of interventions.

Using restraint with nursing home residents: a qualitative study of nursing staff perceptions and decision-making

The study reported in this paper applied a qualitative and interpretative approach to nursing staff perceptions of the use of restraint with elderly nursing home residents, and into nurses' decision-making on restraint use. The data were collected using unstructured interviews with a purposive sample of 20 trained and untrained nursing staff from two Swiss nursing homes. Data analysis was based on Colaizzi's phenomenological method. Three main themes were extracted from the data: (1) understanding the term restraint, (2) situations in which the decision to apply restraint is considered justified and (3) situations in which nursing staff are uncertain about the use of restraint. The underlying bases with respect to decision-making were: understanding restraint, the rights and responsibilities of both residents and staff, and the duties of staff. Staff members were ambiguous in their understanding of restraint and they showed positive as well as confused attitudes towards its use. Their behaviour was defensive and protective rather than challenging. Further research is required on what is meant by safety in care of the elderly nursing today. In nursing practice, as far as issues of restraint are concerned, greater attention should be devoted to the relationship between elderly residents' self-determination and responsibility for their actions.

Individualized interventions to prevent bed-related falls and reduce siderail use

Five categories of problems that often result in siderail use: memory disorder, impaired mobility, injury risk, nocturia/incontinence, and sleep disturbance. As nursing homes work toward meeting the Health Care Financing Administration's mandate to examine siderail use, administrators and staff need to implement interventions that support safety and individualize care for residents. While no one intervention represents a singular solution to siderail use, a range of interventions, tailored to individual needs, exist. This article describes the process of selecting individualized interventions to reduce bed-related falls.

Improving patient care through implementation of nurse-driven restraint protocols

Nationally, much attention has been placed on the indiscriminate application and abuse of restraint usage. This was the impetus for health care institutions across the country to relook at the policy, practices, and procedures regarding restraints. Our health care system made changes to our restraint policy, practice guidelines, and procedures in an effort to assure protection of the patients' health and safety while preserving their dignity, rights, and well-being. The mission was to pursue a restraint-appropriate environment by restraining only those patients who were assessed as being at risk of harming self and to protect the patient or others from injury. Our overall goal was to reduce restraint usage. This article describes the current policies, practice guidelines, and procedures for identifying clinically appropriate and adequately justified situations for restraint usage. The focus is on implementation of nurse-driven restraint protocols to improve patient care. All efforts directed at improvements in restraint usage and management of a patient in restraints has reduced our overall numbers of patients in restraints as well as significantly reduced risk of incidence for patients in restraints.

An analysis of falls in the hospital: can we do without bedrails?

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of introduction of a bedrail policy, and an educational program, on patient falls and fall-related injuries.

DESIGN

A prospective "Before and After" design.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

All patients admitted during 1 calendar year in an assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation unit for older people.

INTERVENTION

A policy change for the use of bedrails (restricting their use) and an educational program about their effects.

MEASUREMENTS

Patient fall rates -- all falls and around the bed falls -- and patient and staff injuries.

RESULTS

There was a significant reduction in the number of beds with bedrails attached after the policy introduction (mean of 40/135 vs 18.5/135, respectively, P = .02), but the fall rate (either total or around the bed) did not change significantly. Serious injuries were significantly less common after the bedrail policy was introduced (P = .008), with fewer head injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing the use of bedrails did not alter patient fall rates significantly, but it was associated with a reduction in serious injuries. Unless it can be shown that bedrails are beneficial, their continued use in older patients must be seriously questioned.

A standardized assessment and intervention protocol for managing risk for falls on a geriatric rehabilitation unit

This article describes the intervention protocols implemented at the Sisters of Charity Hospital of Ottawa, Canada on a 36-bed geriatric rehabilitation unit for managing the risk for falls in patients assessed to be at high, moderate, or low risk. The implementation of tailored protocols is of particular importance on rehabilitation units because staff must balance the treatment goal to increase patient mobility, activity level, and independence with the need to prevent falls. Thus, this article also describes the related standardized criteria and decisional guidelines used in determining patients' level of independence on the unit for each fall-risk category. This article concludes with an outline of practices designed to facilitate safe transfers and completion of activities of daily living among geriatric patients with functional impairments by teaching and promoting the use of behavioral compensatory strategies for disability-related deficits.

Use of physical restraints on elderly patients: an exploratory study of the perceptions of nurses in Hong Kong

A qualitative study was designed to explore nurses' perceptions of the use of physical restraints on elderly patients in Hong Kong. Content analysis of semi-structured interviews with 20 registered nurses working in medical and geriatric settings of two regional hospitals revealed that although nurses generally had mixed feelings about the use of physical restraints on elderly patients, they did not question this 'routine' practice and their knowledge about the consequences and alternatives to the use of restraint was limited. It was found that nurses had an overriding concern in ensuring elderly patients' physical safety and using restraints therefore provided them with a sense of security. The deleterious impact of restraint on the care received by elderly patients was largely unrecognized. Implications for practice and future studies are discussed in the light of these findings.

Individualized assessment and intervention in bilateral siderail use

The use of bilateral siderails, similar to physical restraints, can be safely reduced by a comprehensive assessment process. This article presents an individualized assessment for evaluating siderail use to guide nurses in managing resident characteristics for falling out of bed and intervening for high-risk residents. The individualized assessment is consistent with federal resident assessment instrument requirements and includes risk factors specific to falls from bed.

Ethical guidelines of the Alzheimer Society of Canada

Alzheimer's disease raises numerous ethical issues which vary and evolve over the course of the illness. In recognition of the need for ongoing discussion of these issues, the Alzheimer Society of Canada established a Task Force on Ethics in 1995. Through a process of "discourse ethics" and consultation on a national scale, the Task Force produced a series of guidelines dealing with the issues of: communicating the diagnosis, driving, respecting individual choice, quality of life, participation in research, genetic testing, the use of restraints, and end-of-life care. This manuscript presents a summary of these guidelines as well as a summary of the ideas on which they were based. It was the hope of the Society that the publication of these guidelines will serve to facilitate discussion of the ethics of care of those with Alzheimer's disease.

Physical restraints in nursing homes: a review of the literature since the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987

The use of physical restraints is one of the most negative features of nursing home care. Their use significantly affects the quality of life of residents. In an attempt to limit the use of restraints, the Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA) of 1987 contained provisions regulating their use. In this article, the authors review the literature on the use and consequences of physical restraints in nursing homes since the passage of the NHRA. First, they describe the history behind the use of restraints and define what is considered to be a physical restraint. Second, they examine the four most common justifications for restraint use. Third, they describe the incidence and prevalence of restraint use. Fourth, they address demographic and clinical characteristics of residents that have been found to be associated with restraint use. Fifth, they examine negative outcomes of restraining residents. Finally, they describe alternatives to using restraints.

Deaths caused by bedrails

OBJECTIVES

To determine how bedrails cause death in order to suggest clinical and ergonomic changes to prevent such deaths and to promote research to improve the use and design of bed systems.

DESIGN

A review of reports of adult deaths and injuries from bedrails contained in the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission Death Certificate File and its Reported Incidents File and its National Injury Information Clearinghouse Accident Investigations from 1993 to 1996. Deaths involving the use of vest restraints were excluded. We reconstructed, reenacted, and have graphically depicted major patterns of deaths. A review of the literature to 1966 was also done.

RESULTS

The 74 deaths described are categorized into three types: (1) 70% were entrapments between the mattress and a rail so that the face was pressed against the mattress, (2) 18% were entrapment and compression of the neck within the rails, and (3) 12% were deaths caused by being trapped by the rails after sliding partially off the bed and having the neck flexed or the chest compressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Deaths from bedrails are underrecognized and preventable clinical events that can occur in any medical setting. Preventing these events will require a unified redesign of the relationships between rails, mattresses, and beds, which are now often assembled and used as separate products. Clinicians can prevent many of these deaths by using bedrails much more judiciously, confirming the proper relationships between beds, rails and mattresses, and using alarms.