Patient and family perceptions of restraints

Predictors of Physical Restraint Use in Hospitalized Veterans at End of Life: An Analysis of Data from the BEACON Trial

BACKGROUND

The use of physical restraints in dying patients may be a source of suffering and loss of dignity. Little is known about the prevalence or predictors for restraint use at end of life in the hospital setting.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine the prevalence and predictors of physical restraint use at the time of death in hospitalized adults.

METHODS

Secondary analysis was performed on data from the "Best Practices for End-of-Life Care for Our Nation's Veterans" (BEACON) trial conducted between 2005 and 2011. Medical record data were abstracted from six Veterans Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs). Data on processes of care in the last seven days of life were abstracted from the medical records of 5476 who died in the six VAMCs. We prospectively identified potential risk factors for restraint use at the time of death from among the variables measured in the parent trial, including location of death, medications administered, nasogastric tube, intravenous (IV) fluids, family presence, and receipt of a palliative care consultation.

RESULTS

Physical restraint use at time of death was documented in 890 decedents (16.3%). Restraint use varied by location of death, with patients in intensive settings being at higher risk. Restraint use was significantly more likely in patients with a nasogastric tube and those receiving IV fluids, benzodiazepines, or antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to document that one in six hospitalized veterans were restrained at the time of death and to identify predictors of restraint use. Further research is needed to identify intervention opportunities.

Coercion in nursing homes: Perspectives of patients and relatives

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated the extensive use of coercion in Norwegian nursing homes, which represents ethical, professional as well as legal challenges to the staff. We have, however, limited knowledge of the experiences and views of nursing home patients and their relatives.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to explore the perspectives of nursing home patients and next of kin on the use of coercion; are there situations where the use of coercion can be defended, and if so, under which circumstances?

METHODS

The data are based on individual interviews with 35 patients living in six nursing homes and seven focus group interviews with 60 relatives.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Participation was based on written informed consent, and the study was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics.

RESULTS

More than half of the patients and the majority of the relatives accepted the use of coercion, trusting the staff to act in the patient's best interest. However, the acceptance of coercion is strongly related to the patients' lack of understanding, to prevent health risks and to preserve the patient's dignity.

CONCLUSION

The majority of nursing home patients and relatives accepted the use of coercion in specific situations, while at the same time they emphasised the need to try alternative strategies first. There is still a need for good qualitative research on the use of coercion in nursing homes, especially with a closer focus on the perspectives and experiences of nursing home patients.

[Physical restraint use in critical care units. Perceptions of patients and their families]

INTRODUCTION

The use of physical restraints in Intensive Care Units (ICU) is common although little is known about patients' and relatives' perceptions of this use.

OBJECTIVES

1) To analyze the prevalence and use of physical restraints in a general adult ICU; 2) to know the perceptions of patients who experienced use of physical restraints and; 3) to know the perceptions of relatives of patients who used physical restraints.

METHODS

This descriptive study, which used both quantitative and qualitative methods, was carried out in an adult ICU. For the first objective, all the patients (101) who had used any kind of physical restraint were analysed. For the second and third objectives, 30 patients and 30 relatives were interviewed using the guidelines of Strumpf & Evans as modified by Hardin (1993). All interviews were recorded, fully transcribed and then submitted to a language content analysis using the method of Hsieh & Shannon.

RESULTS

The only physical restraint used was the wrist restraint with a prevalence of 43.47%. Seventy-two percent of patients wore the restraint ≤12h and 28%>12h. Analysis of the patient interviews revealed 4 main themes: acceptance of the restraint conditioned by beliefs and information provided; feelings and sensations caused by the use of the restraint; alternatives proposed and future repercussions. Three themes emerged from the interviews with relatives: impressions caused by the use of the restrictions; reasons for accepting or rejecting them; alternatives to the use of restraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients used physical restraints for a short period of time and only the wrist restraint was used. Patients using physical restraints and their relatives expressed a wide range of feelings and sensations, with no negative future repercussions. In general, they agreed with the use of restraints although more precise information would lead to greater acceptance.

Attitudes of relatives of nursing home residents toward physical restraints

PURPOSE

Attitudes of nursing home staff, residents, and their relatives determine the decision-making process about the use of physical restraints. Knowledge of staffs' attitudes toward physical restraints is sparse; even less is known about relatives' attitudes. Therefore, we surveyed relatives' attitudes and opinions toward physical restraints and compared the results to a survey of nursing home staff.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey comparing 177 nursing home residents' relatives from 13 German facilities in 2008 to 258 nursing home nurses from 25 German facilities in 2007.

METHODS

The German version of the Maastricht Attitude Questionnaire was administered. Part I contains 22 items with three subscales (reasons, consequences, and appropriateness of restraints); Part II contains 16 items evaluating restrictiveness and discomfort of restraint measures, respectively. Descriptive and explorative inferential statistics were used for data analyses.

FINDINGS

Response rate in both samples was above 90%. Mean age was 62 years (SD 12.60; range 24-93) in relatives and 44 years (SD 11.40; range 19-65) in nurses; 72% and 82% were female, respectively. Relatives assess physical restraints a little more positively compared to nurses, with an average of 3.40 (SD 0.60) versus 3.07 (SD 0.48) on a 5-point scale (5=strongly positive attitude). Relatives assess physical restraints as slightly less restrictive, with 2.11 (SD 0.33), and as less discomforting, with 2.10 (SD 0.38) points, compared to nursing staff, who assess the restraints' restrictiveness with 2.19 (SD 0.29) points and its discomfort with 2.17 (SD 0.32) on a 3-point scale (3=very restrictive/discomforting). Both groups consider wrist and ankle belts as most restrictive and uncomfortable, while sensor mats, infrared systems, and unilateral bedrails were rated as the lowest for restrictiveness and discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes of nursing home residents' relatives toward physical restraints are rather positive and generally comparable with nursing home staffs' attitudes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Interventions aimed to reduce physical restraints need to include education of both staff and relatives of nursing home residents.

[Development and testing of an instrument to measure family's emotional response toward physically restrained patients]

PURPOSE

This was a methodological research to develop an instrument to assess the emotional response of family members of physically restrained patients.

METHODS

A primary instrument with 68 questions was developed based on literature review and semi-structured interviews with family members. A group of experts revised individual questions and removed 4 irrelevant questions. This secondary instrument, then, was tested with 199 family members of physically restrained patients in intensive care units of a university hospital. The validity and reliability of the instrument were tested by factor analysis.

RESULTS

After item analysis, 3 questions with a correlation coefficient under .30 were discarded and the questions with a factor loading under .45 on Varimax Rotation were also removed. After factor analysis on the final 37 questions, 7 factors were identified; avoidance, shock, helplessness, grudge, depression, anxiousness, and acceptance. The total variance explained was 55.63%. The reliability of this instrument was 0.93 of Cronbach's alpha.

CONCLUSION

This instrument was statistically reliable and valid to measure family's emotional response to physical restraints of the patients. This instrument can be useful in assessing the effects of nursing interventions for family members of restrained patients.

Nurses' feelings and thoughts about using physical restraints on hospitalized older patients

AIM

To explore nurses' feelings and thoughts about physically restraining older hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND

The use of physical restraints is still highly prevalent in hospitals; furthermore, older patients are most likely to be so restrained. Studies in acute care settings have focused mainly on nurses' knowledge, attitudes, or practice concerning physical restraints, on physical restraint reduction programmes, on nurses' perceptions about the use of physical restraints, or on elderly patients' experiences with physical restraints. To the best of our knowledge no studies have been conducted on hospital nurses' feelings and thoughts about the use of physical restraints in Taiwan.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A qualitative approach was used to understand this phenomenon. Semi-structured interviews were carried out, from August 2002 to March 2003, with 12 nurses working in three hospitals. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim; content analysis was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Nurses reported a variety of emotional responses regarding the use of physical restraints, including sadness, guilt, conflicts, retribution, absence of feelings, security, and pity for the restrained older people. Rationalization, sharing with colleagues, and compensating behaviours were ways that nurses used to manage their negative feelings.

CONCLUSIONS

Most nurses had negative feelings towards the use of physical restraints. Among these nurses there was a struggle between patients' autonomy and the practice of care. However, other nurses said they had 'no feelings' or 'feeling of security' while using physical restraints.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings of this study may contribute to filling the gaps in nursing knowledge, to improving protocols for physical restraint use in hospitals, and may also assist nurse managers to create a supportive practice environment. It is recommended that in-service training programmes should cover misconceptions regarding physical restraint use, ethical issues and how to cope with feelings while using physical restraints.

Patient autonomy in physical restraint

Despite initiatives to raise the awareness of patient autonomy among healthcare providers, the use of physical restraints on frail or confused older patients continues to be a common practice in many healthcare settings. This paper examines the relationship between patient autonomy and the use of physical restraints by drawing on the literature contradicting its efficacy and the assumption that its use is necessary to protect the welfare of patients. It argues that the paternalistic use of physical restraints without patient's informed consent is morally unjustified and is an unequivocal violation of their autonomy. The duty to respect individual autonomy should be extended to a duty to respect the autonomy of older people who are being restrained. Only in this way can their human dignity and quality of life be enhanced.

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].

A review of physical restraint minimization in the acute and residential care settings

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to investigate physical restraint minimization in acute and residential care settings. The first aim was to determine the effectiveness of attempts to minimize the use of physical restraint, and the second was to generate a description of the characteristics of restraint minimization programmes.

METHOD

A comprehensive search was undertaken involving all major databases and the reference lists of all relevant papers. To be included in the review studies had to be an evaluation of restraint minimization in an acute or residential care setting. As only a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified, it was not possible statistically to pool the findings of different studies on the effectiveness of restraint minimization. To generate a description of the characteristics of restraint minimization programmes, the reported components of these programmes were identified and categorized.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies evaluating restraint minimization were identified: three in acute care and 13 in residential care. Of these, only one was an RCT, with the most common approach being the before and after study design. Based on the findings of the single RCT, education supported by expert consultation effectively reduced the use of restraint in residential care. There has been little evaluation of restraint minimization in acute care settings. The common approach to restraint minimization has involved a programme of multiple activities, with restraint education being the characteristic common to most programmes.

DISCUSSION

Evidence suggests that physical restraint can be safely reduced in residential care settings through a combination of education and expert clinical consultation. There is little information on restraint minimization in acute care settings. The major finding of this review is the need for further investigation into all aspects of restraint minimization.

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.

The effect of individualized activities on the sleep of nursing home residents who are cognitively impaired: a pilot study

This pilot study investigated a program of individualized activities designed to enhance nocturnal sleep in five cognitively impaired veterans residing in a dementia care unit. Actigraphy documented 24-hour sleep-wake patterns of the residents for 3 days. Those meeting the criteria for inclusion then participated in an Individualized Activity Intervention timed to occur during peak napping times for 14 days. During the 10th, 12th, and 14th days of intervention, actigraphy provided a repeat measure of sleep-wake patterns. The results indicated an increase in nocturnal sleep with increased efficiency, as well as a decrease in daytime napping. This pilot study encourages further investigation of this potential method for enhancing nocturnal sleep in cognitively impaired elderly adults.

Systematic reviews: gatekeepers of nursing knowledge

The past few decades have seen a considerable increase in the number of available health care products and interventions. This growth has been matched by a similar expansion in the health care literature. As a result of these factors, the demand for evidence to support practice is growing, but finding the best evidence is becoming increasingly difficult. In response, the use of systematic reviews is increasing and they are starting to replace the primary research as the basis for health care decisions. To date, these reviews have focused predominantly on effectiveness and so have been limited to randomized controlled trials. As a result of this, the interpretive, observational and descriptive research methods that are utilized by nursing have commonly been either excluded from the review or are classified as 'low level' evidence. To address this, nursing must participate in the development of systematic review methods that better answer the questions posed by the profession.

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.

Relatives' perceptions of side rail use on the older person in hospital

With an increasing emphasis on improving standards in the care of older people, the use of physical restraints has received growing attention in the nursing literature. Physical restraint use has been likened to abuse as it impedes the movement of a person, encourages dependence on staff and denies autonomy. Side rails (cot sides, bed rails) can be considered as a physical restrain device. The therapeutic use of restraint has not previously been adequately explained. Furthermore, there is a dearth of literature examining the personal experience of physical restraint use. The Family Interview Guide (Strumpf and Evans, 1988) was used to explore perceptions of nine relatives whose family had side rails used during their care in an older person ward. The findings of the study suggest that while families place value on the perceived safety function of side rails, they nonetheless have worries about their use. These pertain to the risk of patient entrapment and possible injury. Patients' relatives associated side rails with ritualized practice in gerontology and make suggestions for the re-design of side rails. The study also highlights the potential for increased family participation in the decision to use side rails.

The effects of research on clinical practice: the use of restraints

The investigators have conducted a series of four descriptive, clinical studies to examine the nature of restraint use in extended care and nursing home units in a veterans' facility. Based on the findings of three of these studies, staff education and policy changes were implemented with the intent of decreasing the use of restraints. The present and fourth study in the series examines whether the use of restraints decreased from 1990 to 1993, after policy changes and staff education were initiated. Findings indicate that the frequency of restraint use decreased by almost half, from 25% to 14%. In addition, falls did not increase, but those falling were less likely to be restrained. These findings illustrate the importance of research in setting a course for positive change in clinical practice.

Agitation: measurement, management, and intervention research

Strategies for controlling and managing agitation of patients in long-term care populations has been identified as a research priority. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of literature on empirically tested therapeutic interventions for agitation. This manuscript summarizes the literature related to the measurement, management, and interventions for agitation and identifies a nursing research agenda for conducting research in this area. Nonpharmacological and nonrestraint interventions are highlighted and categorized by (1) alterations in care given, (2) environmental adaptations, and (3) behavioral approaches. Future research areas identified by the authors focus on additional types of environmental, interpersonal, and behavioral interventions as well as theoretical predictors of agitation; the influence and role of nursing personnel and caregiver; and the legal and ethical issues involved in caring for patients who manifest agitation.