Effect of a treatment interference protocol on clinical decision making for restraint use in the intensive care unit: a pilot study

Stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of a decision support tool for physical restraint use in intensive care units (ARBORea Study): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Intensive care units (ICUs) manage patients with or likely to have one or more life-threatening acute organ failures that might require the use of invasive supportive therapies. The use of physical restraint is frequent, with rates up to 50%, and usually initiated to maintain patient safety especially if the patient is agitated. Physical restraints have been associated with delirium, post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries while restricting patients' individual freedom. Moreover, the incidence of invasive therapeutic devices' self-removal by patients might not be decreased by physical restraint use. No recommendation is available concerning ICU patients and physical restraint management, despite being a daily practice. The main objective is to evaluate whether a strategy aimed at decreasing physical restraint use in ICU patients with that of a strategy based on routine and subjective caregivers' decision is safe and efficient.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

ARBORea is a multicentre randomised, stepped-wedge trial testing an innovative, dedicated web-based, multiprofessionally developed, experts validated, nursing management strategy in comparison with standard care. The primary outcome is physical restraint use rate (effectiveness) measured at least every 8 hours and incidents' rate (tolerance) defined as the rate of incidents attributable to non-compliance, corresponding to the deterioration or self-removal of critical devices, a fall or self-aggressive or heteroaggressive behaviours. Planned enrolment is 4000 ICU adult participants at 20 French academic and non-academic centres. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Trial results will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 guidelines. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international meetings and conferences to publicise and explain the research to clinicians, commissioners and service users. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health and has been approved by the French local ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer 2, Toulouse, France with registration number: 2020-A02904-35).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

(ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04957238 on 12 July 2021 before first inclusion in study.

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.

A Nomogram for Predicting Physical Restraint of Patients in Intensive Care Unit

Background

Despite its ethical implications, physical restraint (PR) is widely used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to guarantee the safety of patients. This study investigated the frequency and risk factors of PR use for patients in the ICU to establish a predictive nomogram.

Methods

Clinical parameters of patients admitted to the ICU of Jiangsu Province Hospital from January 2021 to July 2021 were retrospectively collected. Independent risk factors of PR were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The R software was used to establish the nomogram. Model performance was validated using the concordance-index (C-index) and calibration curves.

Results

The rate of PR use was 46.32% (233/503 patients). Age (B = 0.036, odds ratio [OR]: 1.037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.022-1.052, P < 0.001), consciousness disorder (B = 0.770, OR: 2.159, 95% CI: 1.216-3.832, P=0.009), coma (B = -1.666, OR: 0.189, 95% CI: 0.101-0.353, P < 0.001), passive activity (B = 1.014, OR: 2.756, 95% CI: 1.644-4.618, P < 0.001), delirium (B = 0.993, OR: 2.699, 95% CI: 1.097-6.642, P=0.031), -3 < Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score <2 (B = 0.698, OR: 2.009, 95% CI: 1.026-3.935, P=0.042), RASS score ≥2 (B = 1.253, OR: 3.499, 95% CI: 1.126-10.875, P=0.030), and mechanical ventilation (B = 1.696, OR: 5.455, 95% CI: 2.804-10.611, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for PR in the ICU (P < 0.05) and included in the nomogram. The C-index was 0.830, and the calibration curve indicated good discriminatory ability and accuracy (mean absolute error: 0.026).

Conclusion

The prediction nomogram model of PR in ICU was established based on age, mobility, delirium, consciousness, RASS score, and mechanical ventilation. It showed good discrimination and accuracy. This nomogram may predict the probability of PR use in the ICU and guide nurses in developing precise interventions to reduce the rate of PR.

Development and implementation of a novel decision support tool on physical restraint use in critically ill adult patients

AIM

To investigate whether a novel decision support tool would effectively minimize physical restraint use in critically ill adult patients.

DESIGN

A nonequivalent quasi-experimental design combined with a descriptive qualitative approach was used.

METHODS

A Restraint Decision Tree was developed based on a qualitative study that explored the barriers to employ the Restraint Decision Wheel. During the quasi-experimental study, patients admitted to the unit between October 2017 and March 2018 were enrolled as the control group receiving the Restraint Decision Wheel (n = 528), whereas patients between April 2018 and September 2018 were enrolled as the intervention group receiving the Restraint Decision Tree (n = 564). The physical restraint rate, accidental catheter removal rate and nurses' satisfaction were compared.

RESULTS

The Restraint Decision Tree significantly decreased physical restraint use. No significant difference in the rate of accidental catheter removal was found. Nurses reported increased satisfaction with the restraint decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

The Restraint Decision Tree could minimize physical restraint use. Physicians' involvement in the restraint decision-making and nurses' competence in delirium assessment may be essential for successful implementation of the Restraint Decision Tree.

Good practices for physical restraint in intensive care units: integrative review

OBJECTIVES

to describe the available evidence on indications, complications, care and alternative strategies in the use of physical restraint in adult patients in Intensive Care Units.Methods: an integrative review conducted in the LILACS, Nursing Database, Índice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud, Scopus and CINAHL databases and the PubMed portal, in the period from June to August 2018.

RESULTS

the final selection was of 19 articles, from which the indications, complications, care and alternative strategies were extracted. The studies were conducted between the years 2003 and 2018, with a predominance of the United States; they were mostly classified (58%) in level 6 evidence, being performed by nurses, with multi-professional participation of psychologists, pharmacists, physicians, and nurses.

CONCLUSIONS

the most common practices regarding physical restriction were described, and the need for the elaboration and implementation of protocols on intervention to support decision making was observed.

Nurses' Knowledge, Attitude, and Influencing Factors regarding Physical Restraint Use in the Intensive Care Unit: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Physical restraint is a common practice in the intensive care units which often result in frequent skin laceration at restraint site, limb edema, restricted circulation, and worsening of agitation that may even end in death. Despite the sensitivity of the problem, however, it is felt that there are nurses' evidence-based practice gaps in Ethiopia. To emphasize the importance of this subject, relevant evidence is required to develop protocols and to raise evidence-based practices of health professionals. So, this study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and influencing factors of nurses regarding physical restraint use in the intensive care units in northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

An institution-based cross-sectional study was maintained from March to September 2019 at Amhara regional state referral hospitals, northwest Ethiopia. A total of 260 nurses in the intensive care units were invited to take part in the study by a convenience sampling technique. The Level of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Staff regarding Physical Restraints Questionnaire was used to assess the nurses' knowledge and attitude. Linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influencing factors of knowledge and attitude. Adjusted unstandardized beta (β) coefficient with a 95% confidence interval was used to report the result of association with a p value < 0.05 statistical significance level.

Result

The mean scores of nurses' knowledge and attitude regarding physical restraint use among critically ill patients were 7.81 ± 1.89 and 33.75 ± 6.50, respectively. These mean scores are above the scale midpoint nearer to the higher ranges which imply a moderate level of knowledge and a good attitude regarding physical restraint. Lower academic qualification and short (<2 years) work experience were associated with lower-level of knowledge, and reading about restraint from any source and taken training regarding restraints were factors associated with a higher knowledge. Diploma and bachelor's in academic qualification were significantly associated with a negative attitude regarding restraint. Besides, there was a more positive attitude among nurses with a higher level of knowledge and who received training regarding physical restraint use.

Conclusion

The nurses working in the intensive care unit had a moderate level of knowledge and a good attitude regarding physical restraint use. So, developing and providing educational and in-service training to the nurses regarding physical restraint are necessary to strengthen the quality of care for critically ill patients.

Predictors of New-Onset Physical Restraint Use in Critically Ill Adults

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints are frequently used for intensive care patients and are associated with substantial morbidity. The effects of common evidence-based critical care interventions on use of physical restraints remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To identify independent predictors of new-onset use of physical restraints in critically ill adults.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study involving 5 adult intensive care units in a tertiary care medical center in the United States. Use of physical restraints was determined via daily in-person assessments and medical record review. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with new-onset use of physical restraints, adjusting for covariates and within-subject correlation among intensive care unit days.

RESULTS

Of 145 patients who were free of physical restraints within 48 hours of intensive care unit admission, 24 (16.6%) had restraints newly applied during their stay. In adjusted models, delirium (odds ratio [OR], 5.09; 95% CI, 1.83-14.14), endotracheal tube presence (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.22-9.86), and benzodiazepine administration (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.28-7.81) significantly increased the odds of next-day use of physical restraints. Tracheostomy was associated with significantly lowered odds of next-day restraint use (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.73). Compared with patients with a target sedation level, patients who were in a coma (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 0.80-8.18) or deeply sedated (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 0.91-7.08) had higher odds of next-day use of physical restraints, and agitated patients (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-2.07) were less likely to experience restraint use.

CONCLUSION

Several potentially modifiable risk factors are associated with next-day use of physical restraints.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

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

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints are used in intensive care units, particularly among patients at risk for self-terminating necessary treatment interventions, including endotracheal tubes and invasive catheters. Assessments conducted by intensive care unit nurses often influence the collaborative decision to initiate and discontinue restraints in critical care patients. However, little is known about factors that influence the critical thought processes of intensive care unit nurses in determining use of restraints.

OBJECTIVES

To describe nurses' determinants of initiation and discontinuation of restraints in surgical intensive care unit patients.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted to identify and describe determinants of initiation and discontinuation of physical restraints. Demographic and employment data were collected via questionnaire. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by using conventional content analysis to establish categories and identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 13 nurses (mean age 43 [SD, 12] years, 92% female, mean of 18 [SD, 12] years of practice as a registered nurse, 69% bachelor of science in nursing) participated in the study. Content analysis revealed 3 general categories and 8 themes that indicated the thoughtful reflection processes nurses in a surgical intensive care unit use to determine use of restraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Top priorities were ensuring patient safety and comfort. Nurses synthesized factors including practice experience, patient-specific behaviors and risk, and patients' need for devices in determining use of restraints.

Using a Decision Wheel to Reduce Use of Restraints in a Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Little information is available on the use of tools in intensive care units to help nurses determine when to restrain a patient. Patients in medical-surgical intensive care units are often restrained for their safety to prevent them from removing therapeutic devices. Research indicates that restraints do not necessarily prevent injuries or removal of devices by patients.

OBJECTIVES

To decrease use of restraints in a medical-surgical intensive care unit and to determine if a decision support tool is useful in helping bedside nurses determine whether or not to restrain a patient.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study design was used for this pilot study. Data were collected for each patient each shift indicating if therapeutic devices were removed and if restraints were used. An online educational activity supplemented by 1-on-1 discussion about proper use of restraints, alternatives, and use of a restraint decision tool was provided. Frequency of restraint use was determined. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to examine nurses' perceptions of the decision support tool.

RESULTS

Use of restraints was reduced 32%. No unplanned extubations or disruption of life-threatening therapeutic devices by unrestrained patients occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

With implementation of the decision support tool, nurses decreased their use of restraints yet maintained patients' safety. A decision support tool may help nurses who are undecided or who need reassurance on their decision to restrain or not restrain a patient.

The use of physical restraints on paediatric intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Physical restraints are used in critical care units in an attempt to reduce the risk of treatment interference. Their use remains controversial and there are concerns regarding the effectiveness and safety of restraint techniques. There are few data available on the prevalence of physical restraint use in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) in the UK and we have therefore conducted a cross-sectional survey to define current clinical practice.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire was sent to all UK PICU with questions on the use of physical restraint techniques, including the use of splints across the joints of limbs and of securing limbs to the bed. Consent issues were also addressed.

RESULTS

Of those units responding 68% reported that physical restraint techniques were used within those units. Ten units (36% of those responding) reported the use of manual holding of patients, 16 units (57% of those responding) reported the use of splints across the joints of limbs, three units reported the use of swaddling as a restraint technique while one unit secured limbs of patients to the bed. None of the units obtained written consent prior to the use of physical restraints and 53% obtained verbal consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical restraint is a commonly used technique on PICU in the UK. There is considerable variation in clinical practice and current clinical guidelines which are available do not deal specifically with children. Prospective randomized trials would be necessary to fully investigate the role of physical restraints amongst critically ill children.

Reporting unplanned extubation

Between 1995 and 2002 seven clinical audits were undertaken in consecutive periods over twelve months to determine the frequency and risk factors associated with reported unplanned extubation (UE) within a 22-bed general and surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Nursing and medical staff provided information on the patient's age, diagnosis, mental status, precipitating causes and investigations/treatment ordered. Following the first audit, modifications were made to include anonymous reporting. Additional information was also obtained on the patient's position, sedation regimen, method of endotracheal tube (ETT) placement and the use of physical restraints. A clinical indicator was established to monitor the UE incidence based as a rate of UE per 100 patients. Audit results were between 1.06% and 4.86% with an aggregate rate from 1995 to 2002 of 2.6%. This rate compares favourably with the range of 2.8-22.5% reported in the literature. Over the survey periods, 28-60% of patients were assessed as being confused or agitated, 47-67% restrained and 53-70% sedated. The UE reported rate initially increased when anonymous reporting was introduced from 1.06% to 4.86%. Unplanned extubation incidence subsequently decreased in Surgical ICU following the introduction of clinical pathways, early weaning and nurse led extubation. Monitoring UE in ICU provides important information on the quality of care. We would recommend a system of anonymous reporting to more freely reflect incidence.

British Association of Critical Care Nurses position statement on the use of restraint in adult critical care units

Critical care nurses in the United Kingdom have become increasingly concerned about the use, potential abuse and risks associated with physical restraint of patients. Restraint in critical care is not only confined to physical restraint but can also encompass chemical and psychological methods. There are concerns regarding the legal and ethical issues relating to the (ab)use of physical restraint techniques in critical care. The aim of this article was to present the British Association of Critical Care Nurses (BACCN) position statement on the use of restraint in adult critical care units and to provide supporting evidence to assist clinical staff in managing this process.

Critical care nursing for older adults: pathophysiological and functional considerations

The aging of the population brings into health care practice, including ICUs, an increasing prevalence of people with chronic conditions with corresponding expectations of eventual decline in function. These age-related health problems, however, do not have a precise moment of onset, nor a single and unambiguous cause. By their nature, chronic conditions do not have an end that can be modified easily, and ordinarily, they are related to parameters other than physiology alone. Aged individuals often are distinguished as a medicalized cohort on the basis of sheer numbers of comorbidities and predisposition toward frequent hospitalizations, without regard for the potential for adaptation to life despite complex health factors. Some care providers, health economists, and bioethicists propose using the existence of chronic conditions and assumed physical decompensation asa valid basis for restricting individuals and groups, by means of rationing, from consideration for intensive care and treatment. In view of studies demonstrating that covert rationing of ICU resources to critically ill older patients already is taking place, there isa need to continue to examine institutional policies that permit care providers to act as gatekeepers, ostensibly with benign intent, but presumably without patients' knowledge or acceptance. On the other hand, there is evidence that older ICU patients do equally well as younger and middle-aged patients in terms of discharge from the hospital with subsequent recovery of function. Thus, age alone is not a useful marker for limiting access to ICUs. Rather, a comprehensive evaluation is the foundation for diagnostic accuracy and health care decision-making for older individuals. Assessment and maintenance of the older person's functional status are fundamental concerns of geriatric and critical care specialists. Evaluation of an individual's baseline abilities in physical, mental, social, and psychological spheres is necessary before limitation of care realistically can be considered. Intensive care unit hospitalizations for catastrophic or critical illness are not necessarily terminal events. Ongoing functional assessment will help to illuminate the impact of chronicity on an older person's capacity for self care, and may help to guide health care decision-making regarding use of critical care resources. Accordingly, assuring equitable access to essential intensive care services, devoid of concerns about age constraints, will help to ensure the autonomy that is central to older adults' achievement of a fulfilling and productive old age.