Determinants of Nurses' Use of Physical Restraints in Surgical Intensive Care Unit Patients

Theories for interventions to reduce physical and verbal abuse: A mixed methods review of the health and social care literature to inform future maternity care

Despite global attention, physical and verbal abuse remains prevalent in maternity and newborn healthcare. We aimed to establish theoretical principles for interventions to reduce such abuse. We undertook a mixed methods systematic review of health and social care literature (MEDLINE, SocINDEX, Global Index Medicus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Sept 29th 2020 and March 22nd 2022: no date or language restrictions). Papers that included theory were analysed narratively. Those with suitable outcome measures were meta-analysed. We used convergence results synthesis to integrate findings. In September 2020, 193 papers were retained (17,628 hits). 154 provided theoretical explanations; 38 were controlled studies. The update generated 39 studies (2695 hits), plus five from reference lists (12 controlled studies). A wide range of explicit and implicit theories were proposed. Eleven non-maternity controlled studies could be meta-analysed, but only for physical restraint, showing little intervention effect. Most interventions were multi-component. Synthesis suggests that a combination of systems level and behavioural change models might be effective. The maternity intervention studies could all be mapped to this approach. Two particular adverse contexts emerged; social normalisation of violence across the socio-ecological system, especially for 'othered' groups; and the belief that mistreatment is necessary to minimise clinical harm. The ethos and therefore the expression of mistreatment at each level of the system is moderated by the individuals who enact the system, through what they feel they can control, what is socially normal, and what benefits them in that context. Interventions to reduce verbal and physical abuse in maternity care should be locally tailored, and informed by theories encompassing all socio-ecological levels, and the psychological and emotional responses of individuals working within them. Attention should be paid to social normalisation of violence against 'othered' groups, and to the belief that intrapartum maternal mistreatment can optimise safe outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Critical care nurses' experiences of physical restraint in intensive care units: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Physical restraint is widely used in intensive care units. Critical care nurses are the primary decision makers and practitioners of physical restraint. However, little is known about the qualitative evidence of their experience of physical restraint.

AIMS

To aggregate, synthesise and interpret the qualitative evidence of studies that explored critical care nurses' experiences of physical restraint in intensive care units.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported following the ENTREQ statement. Qualitative studies published in the English and Chinese were systematically searched in eight databases. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from inception to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed the study eligibility and performed the data extraction and the quality appraisal. A meta-aggregative approach was used to synthesise findings. The review protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42021278671).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included. A total of 48 intact and definite codes were extracted and classified into ten sub-categories. Four themes were finally identified: intention, alternatives, determinants, and reflection.

CONCLUSION

The intention of critical care nurses to use physical restraint is primarily driven by patient safety. Nurses will consider alternatives; however, many determinants urge nurses to implement physical restraint. Nurses prefer to sacrifice patients' comfort to ensure their safety. When nurses reflect on what they have done, some experience moral distress, but most rationalise their decision making. Further studies should explore the safety of alternatives, reduce the use of physical restraint, and pay more attention to nurses' moral distress through these insights.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Developing alternatives, providing relevant training for nurses, physicians, patients, and families to facilitate a restraint-free culture, and developing high-quality guidelines and regulations are essential strategies to reduce the use of physical restraint in ICUs.

The Use of Physical Restraints in Italian Intensive Care Units: Results From a Multicenter Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The use of physical restraints (PRs) varies across countries and clinical settings, with intensive care units having the highest frequency. Although many investigations on the use of PRs have been conducted worldwide, few studies are reported in the Italian context.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to describe PR rates and types and to observe the factors associated with PR use.

METHODS

In this observational study, 2 methods were used to collect data: direct observation and review of patients' documentations.

RESULTS

We performed 328 observations on 146 critically ill patients. Physical restraints were applied in 56.7% (n = 186) of these observations. Bilateral wrist ties were used for most PR episodes (n = 135, 72.6%), followed by unilateral wrist ties (12.9%). The most documented reasons were preventing patients from self-extubation (n = 93, 50.0%) and preserving indwelling lines and tubes (n = 60, 32.2%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, patients who were cared for during the night shift were almost 4 times more likely to be restrained than patients in the morning shifts (odds ratio, 3.84; P = .001) and patients with endotracheal tube were 3.5 times more likely to be restricted than spontaneously breathing patients (odds ratio, 3.59; P < .001).

DISCUSSIONS

Physical restraints are commonly used among critically ill patients in Italian intensive care units. There is a need to share the metrics for an efficient and accurate measurement of PR usage and trends and to document the reason for restraints, type of restraints, timeframe, and decision-making criteria.

Prevalence of and factors associated with physical restraint use in the intensive care unit: a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan

Physical restraint is widely used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to ensure patient safety despite its ethical implications. We performed a prospective observational study in six ICUs in Japan to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with physical restraint use in the ICU, a phenomenon that has not yet been reported on in Japan. Data were collected on 10 random days between November 2018 and February 2019. We evaluated physical restraint use in ICU patients aged ≥ 20 years during the data collection days. Among the 787 observations, the prevalence of physical restraint use was 32.9%; however, it was 41.5% in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The average age of patients was 68.5 years, and the average Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 19.4. Among the included patients, 52.1% received IMV, and 17.2% were diagnosed with delirium. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the independent factors [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)] associated with physical restraint use were age [1.02 (1.00-1.05)], APACHE II score [1.05 (1.01-1.09)], IMV [2.15 (1.16-4.01)], central venous catheter indwelling [2.66 (1.46-4.85)], sedative medication [2.98 (1.72-5.17)], agitation [7.83 (2.96-20.8)], and delirium [4.16 (2.37-7.29)]. Approximately one-third of the ICU patients required physical restraint in Japan. In addition, physical restraint use was influenced by disease severity, mental condition, and the medical apparatus used. Based on these findings, further investigations are imperative to develop strategies to reduce physical restraint use.

Managing agitation secondary to hyperactive delirium in deteriorating patients

Delirium is an under-recognised condition which adversely affects deteriorating patients. Delirium can be an acute or long-term condition and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and extended length of hospital stay. The management of delirium is often reactive rather than proactive, which can lead to the inappropriate use of chemical and physical restraint to control agitation secondary to hyperactive delirium. Caring for patients with delirium presents physical and emotional challenges for nurses, who are sometimes inclined to use restraint, which should be a last resort. This article describes the challenges of caring for patients with delirium, presents the risk factors for and assessment of delirium, and describes the management of agitation secondary to hyperactive delirium. Support and education for nurses caring for patients with delirium is essential to ensure optimal patient care and avoid staff burnout.

Nurses' Views on the Use of Physical Restraints in Intensive Care: A Qualitative Study

Despite the worldwide promotion of a “restraint-free” model of care due to the questionable ethical and legal issues and the many adverse physical and psychosocial effects of physical restraints, their use remains relatively high, especially in the intensive care setting. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to explore the experiences of nurses using physical restraints in the intensive care setting. Semi-structured interviews with 20 nurses working in intensive care units for at least three years, were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Then, the transcripts were analyzed according to the qualitative descriptive approach by Sandelowsky and Barroso (2002). Six main themes emerged: (1) definition of restraint, (2) who decides to restrain? (3) reasons behind the restraint use, (4) physical restraint used as the last option (5) family involvement, (6) nurses’ feelings about restraint. Physical restraint evokes different thoughts and feelings. Nurses, which are the professionals most present at the patient’s bedside, have been shown to be the main decision-makers regarding the application of physical restraints. Nurses need to balance the ethical principle of beneficence through this practice, ensuring the safety of the patient, and the principle of autonomy of the person.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Hospital Nurse Competency to Care for Patients With Behavioral Health Concerns: A Follow-Up Study

Nonpsychiatric nurses care for hospital patients with behavioral health (BH) conditions. This study found BH care competencies of hospital nurses slightly changed from those 9 years earlier. On average, nurses reported moderate to strong perceived competence about assessing/intervening and accessing resources to care for BH patients. They perceived less competence in recommending psychotropic drugs for patients who may need them. Staff development programs that aim to enhance nurse BH care competencies are needed.

Use of Physical Restraints in Critical Care Units: Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices

BACKGROUND

Various factors affect the use of physical restraints in the intensive care unit, with nurses' knowledge and attitudes being the strongest determinants.

OBJECTIVE

To determine Turkish intensive care unit nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding physical restraints and factors influencing them.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, correlational study was conducted in the intensive care units of state and university hospitals. A total of 191 nurses provided information on their sociodemographic and professional characteristics and completed a questionnaire on their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding physical restraints.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found between average knowledge scores according to type of intensive care unit, weekly working hours, work shift, and frequency of using physical restraints, with the highest scores found in nurses who worked in the surgical unit, worked 40 hours a week, worked only during the day, and used physical restraints every day. Significant differences were found between average attitude scores according to type of intensive care unit, with the highest scores found in nurses who worked in the cardiology unit. Significant differences were found between average practice scores according to level of education and use of physical restraints without a physician's order, with the highest scores found in nurses with undergraduate and postgraduate degrees and those who did not use physical restraints without a physician's order.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed inadequate knowledge about physical restraints and some unsafe practices among participants. Evidence-based guidelines and laws regarding physical restraints are needed, as well as regular training programs for involved personnel.

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

BACKGROUND

Modifiable unit characteristics, including nurse work environment, education, certification, and staffing have been shown to impact patient safety. Physical restraints are an important patient safety issue, however the relationships between these modifiable unit characteristics and physical restraint use on critical care units has not been explored.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to determine the role of nursing work environment, nurse education and certification, and nurse staffing on physical restraint use.

DESIGN

The study was a secondary analysis of 2017-2018 unit-level restraint rates from the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators linked to Registered Nurse survey and hospital characteristics data.

METHODS

Work environment was examined at the unit-level using total Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index and subscale scores. Unit-level nurse expertise included the percent of nurses with at least a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree and percent with certification. Nurse staffing was the unit-level Registered Nurse hours per patient day and skill mix. Analyses included descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and Structural Equation Modeling. We used a first order model to estimate predicted restraint use from the five subscales of the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index. A higher order model predicted restraint use from a total work environment factor score.

RESULTS

The sample included 408 critical care units from 226 hospitals. Mean restraint rate was 15% (SD 12, range 0-53%). In the first-order model, the Collegial Nurse-Physician Relations subscale had a positive relationship with restraint use (β = 0.167, 95% confidence interval 0.010-0.333). In the higher order model, the total work environment score had a negative relationship with restraint use (β = -0.088, 95% confidence -0.178- -0.014). Registered Nurse hours per patient day had a negative relationship to restraint use in both the first order (β = -0.114, 95% confidence interval -0.222--0.025) and higher order models (β = -0.117, 95% confidence interval -0.223- -0.012).

CONCLUSION

We found that better nurse-physician relationships were associated with higher restraint use. This finding is supported by previous literature and may reflect physician trust in nursing judgement when using restraints. However, a better work environment overall was associated with lower restraint rates. Further, Registered Nurse hours per patient day, but not skill mix, was associated with lower restraint rates. We conclude that improving the overall nurse work environment and nurse staffing, as well as using interprofessional interventions, may be successful in decreasing restraint use on critical care units.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Clarity and contradictions: speech and language therapists' insights regarding thickened liquids for post-stroke aspiration

Background/Aims

Oropharyngeal dysphagia is a common condition following stroke, with adverse consequences including aspiration pneumonia. Internationally, aspiration risk is typically managed using thickened liquids, an intervention with limited empirical support and associated treatment adherence issues. This study explores speech and language therapists' perceptions of and reasons for employing this intervention.

Methods

A total of 22 speech and language therapists working with people with dysphagia post-stroke in hospital settings participated in three focus groups. Participants were recruited through gatekeeper managers and data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes were identified: primary justifications for treatment use, acute implementation issues, and having doubts. Use of thickened liquids is pivoted on safety-first reasoning, employed as a first step on the treatment ladder and in the context of limited perceived alternatives. Both clarity and contradictions are revealed by therapists, who acknowledge multiple factors that impact treatment effectiveness, including hospital, patient and product issues.

Conclusions

The findings from this study provide a basis for understanding clinical decision making for a widely-used gateway treatment that requires further empirical support. The data suggest that, similar to other professions, safety-first reasoning is paramount for speech and language therapists. The dominance of thickened liquids in treating aspiration is reflected internationally and warrants ongoing discussion.

Influence of mutual support and a culture of blame among staff in acute care units on the frequency of physical restraint use in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation

Aim

Reducing the use of physical restraint in intensive care units is challenging, and little is known about the influence of culture on physical restraint use in this setting. The present study aims to verify the hypothesis that mutual support and a culture of blame among staff are associated with higher physical restraint use for mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods

We undertook a survey of nurses in intensive care units caring for mechanically ventilated patients in acute care units. The perceived frequency of physical restraint, mutual support, and culture of blame were measured. We predefined a high frequency physical restraint use group and compared the institutional characteristics, human resources, mutual support, and culture of blame between this group and the others (the control).

Results

Three hundred and thirty-three responses were analyzed. The mean number of beds per nurse was not significantly different between the groups; the mean and percentage of positive responses about mutual support and a culture of blame were significantly lower in the high frequency physical restraint use group. After adjusting variables in a multivariable regression analysis, a less positive response about the culture of blame was the only independent factor to predict high frequency physical restraint use.

Conclusion

The study suggests that changing the culture of blame, rather than increasing the number of nurses, is important for reducing physical restraint use.

The Attitudes Towards the Use of Restraint and Restrictive Intervention Amongst Healthcare Staff on Acute Medical and Frailty Wards-A Brief Literature Review

Restraint in modern non-psychiatric-based healthcare is often regarded as a rare occurrence. It is deemed to be used as a last resort to prevent patients from directly harming themselves. However, techniques are used in modern day practice which are considered direct and indirect restraints with the justification of maintaining patient safety, but they are often not classified as “restraints”. Examples of these include the use of bed rails or tables to prevent patients from “wandering” and to reduce the risk of falls and injuries. More indirect techniques would involve passive interactions with patients or leaving mobility aids out of reach. Staff subconsciously restrain patients and reduce their liberties despite agreeing that patient autonomy should be upheld—a necessary evil to maintain a duty of care. Whilst the use of restraints is often justified to ensure patient care and prevent injury, it is not without consequence. There are physical and psychological health risks such as pressure sores from the inability to mobilise, or the brewing of anger and frustration when denied access to everyday actions. The reasons why restraints are used, whilst stemming from maintaining patient safety, are often due to low staffing levels and the inability to constantly watch at-risk patients due to a large workload. Inadequate training is another factor; by improving education in direct and indirect restraint and providing alternative methods, more ethical decisions and positive outcomes can be implemented. Healthcare professionals are reluctant to use restraint but often conduct it without realising it; assessing their understanding of restraint and providing education to raise awareness of the consequences of direct and indirect methods would result in positive steps toward reducing their use at the same time as looking to provide alternatives to uphold patient care whilst maintaining their dignity and liberty.