Guedj M J, Raynaud Ph, Braitman A, Vanderschooten D
Praticien Hospitalier, responsable du Centre Psychiatrique d'Orientation et d'Accueil, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, 1, rue Cabanis, 75674 Paris cedex 14.
Encephale. 2004 Jan-Feb;30(1):32-9. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(04)95413-9.
The practice of physical restraint is relatively frequent in medical emergency and geriatric units. Its use in psychiatry is controversial. Although distinct, it is often associated with seclusion, as a response to or prevention of agitated mentally ill patients'behavior. A detailed review of the literature shows the scarceness of work defining the exclusive use of restraint without seclusion. We report a naturalistic study over 6 Months, covering 76 cases having required restraint. The study of the international literature concerns nursing care, geriatric, child-adolescent psychiatric and adult psychiatric reviews. The restraint is a usual practice in general care like emergency, intensive care or geriatric units in order to prevent the patients from falling or to administrate certain care. Legal action has been reported as a consequence of lack of information or agreement of the family. The psychiatric use of restraint is conceived as an additional measure to seclusion, which is a controversial procedure from a therapeutic point of view as well as because of its long duration of application. The practice of restraint described in French literature, from Pinel (in to Daumézon and from French hospital regulations to "transparency forms", seems to be more easily accepted for its short duration and its careful prescription in order to maintain relations with the patients, including agitated children. We made a 6 Months retrospective study in a Parisian psychiatric emergency unit receiving an average of 30 patients a day. The rate of restraint is 1.4%. The objective was to describe the main clinical, epidemiological and situational characteristics and to define quality criteria concerning restraint regarding to the existing standards. We had at our disposal a restraint protocol in order to avoid its prescription as a punishment or for the comfort or the convenience of an insufficient staff. The decision of the restraint is directly prescribed by a physician or decided in emergency by the nurses and then rapidly confirmed by medical prescription. In short, most restrained patients are male, the average age is 32 Years old, and the diagnoses associated with restraint in order of frequency are schizophrenia, personality disorders, acute psychotic episodes, manic episodes and toxic abuses. The main early-warning signs are aggressiveness, delusions, opposition, paranoiac thoughts and distrust. The average duration is 2 hours with continuous clinical supervision and a relational contact maintained. Our study confirms the notion of cumulate restraint days. Actually, 43% of the restraints happen on the same day as others do. The high rate on those days could be as Fischer hypothesized the result of instinctive, aggressive and sexual release of the staff, as well as the consequence of an increase in anxiety and agitation of the other patients. The legal framework is more the duty of assistance to a person in danger than constrained hospitalization, which is not systematically pronounced. No injury or somatic complication occurred during restraint. Neither complaint from the patient or his family nor sick leave of staff was recorded. The specific use of restraint can be compared to the existing standards for using the seclusion room. Among those standards only 1 of 23 criteria was not verified. The others was applicable or without object. The therapeutic use of restraint requires the development of specific quality standards, and the existing criteria concerning seclusion represent a necessary but insufficient answer. We emphasize the need to take into account the early warning signs, a response to the cumulative restraint days, as well as a satisfaction study on patients and the feasibility of such a study in an emergency service.
身体约束措施在医疗急救科室和老年病房中较为常用。其在精神病学领域的应用存在争议。尽管与隔离不同,但它常与隔离相伴,作为应对或预防精神疾病躁动患者行为的手段。对文献的详细回顾表明,明确界定单纯使用约束而非隔离的研究稀缺。我们报告一项为期6个月的自然观察研究,涵盖76例需要约束的病例。对国际文献的研究涉及护理、老年医学、儿童青少年精神病学及成人精神病学综述。在普通护理中,如急救、重症监护或老年病房,约束是一种常用措施,用于防止患者跌倒或实施某些护理操作。因缺乏信息或未取得家属同意而引发法律诉讼的情况也有报道。精神病学中使用约束被视为隔离的补充措施,从治疗角度以及因其长时间应用来看,隔离都是一个有争议的程序。法国文献中描述的约束措施,从皮内尔时代(直至达梅宗),从法国医院规定到“透明表格”,因其持续时间短且开具谨慎以维持与患者(包括躁动儿童)的关系,似乎更容易被接受。我们在巴黎一家日均接待约30名患者的精神病急救科室进行了为期6个月的回顾性研究。约束率为1.4%。目的是描述主要的临床、流行病学和情境特征,并根据现有标准确定有关约束的质量标准。我们有一个约束协议,以避免将其作为惩罚手段开具,或为人员不足的便利或舒适而开具。约束决定直接由医生开具,或在紧急情况下由护士决定,然后迅速由医生处方确认。简而言之,大多数被约束患者为男性,平均年龄32岁,与约束相关的诊断按频率依次为精神分裂症、人格障碍、急性精神病发作、躁狂发作和药物滥用。主要预警信号为攻击性、妄想、反抗、偏执想法和不信任。平均持续时间为2小时,期间有持续的临床监护并保持关系接触。我们的研究证实了累积约束天数的概念。实际上,43%的约束发生在其他约束的同一天。那些日子里的高约束率可能如菲舍尔所假设的,是工作人员本能、攻击性和性冲动释放的结果,也是其他患者焦虑和躁动加剧的后果。法律框架更多的是对处于危险中的人的协助义务,而非强制住院,强制住院并非一概而论。约束期间未发生伤害或躯体并发症。未记录到患者或其家属的投诉,也没有工作人员请病假。约束的具体使用可与使用隔离室的现有标准相比较。在这些标准中,23项标准仅有1项未得到验证。其他标准适用或无问题。约束的治疗性使用需要制定特定的质量标准,而现有的关于隔离的标准是必要但不充分的答案。我们强调需要考虑预警信号、对累积约束天数的应对措施,以及患者满意度研究及其在急诊服务中的可行性。