错失改善养老护理中约束使用和同意问题实践的机会：2019 年《护理质量修正案（尽量减少约束的使用）原则》的局限性。
A missed opportunity to improve practice around the use of restraints and consent in residential aged care: Limitations of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019.
机构信息
Capacity Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
School of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
出版信息
Australas J Ageing. 2020 Sep;39(3):292-296. doi: 10.1111/ajag.12757. Epub 2019 Dec 5.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the meaning and potential role of new Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019, (Principles) which amend Quality of Care Principles 2014 in improving practice around physical and chemical restraint.
METHODS
We examined both Principles and accompanying Explanatory Statement in light of best practices around consent and use of chemical and physical restraint.
RESULTS
The chemical restraint definition is problematic by exclusion of medications for treating mental disorders, physical illness or physical conditions, which is not considered restraint. Inexplicably, physical restraint requirements are more rigorous than chemical restraint requirements, where assessment is optional, and consent sometimes obtained, after use, and from the person's "representative," rather than the person first, followed by their proxy decision-maker.
CONCLUSIONS
Although a start in promoting best practice around physical restraint, the Principles do not address the status quo of poor practice around chemical restraint and may instead codify it.
目的
探索新的《护理质量修正案（尽量减少约束的使用）原则 2019》（原则）的意义和潜在作用，该原则修订了 2014 年的《护理质量原则》，以改善身体和化学约束方面的实践。
方法
我们根据同意和使用化学和身体约束的最佳实践，审查了《原则》和随附的说明性声明。
结果
化学约束的定义存在问题，因为它排除了用于治疗精神障碍、身体疾病或身体状况的药物，这些药物不被视为约束。莫名其妙的是，身体约束的要求比化学约束的要求更严格，在那里评估是可选的，并且同意有时是在使用后从“代表”那里获得的，而不是首先从人那里获得，然后是他们的代理人决策者。
结论
尽管在促进身体约束方面迈出了良好实践的第一步，但《原则》并没有解决化学约束方面不良实践的现状，反而可能将其编纂下来。
Zotero 插件