Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
J Clin Nurs. 2023 Apr;32(7-8):1163-1172. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16264. Epub 2022 Feb 22.
To conduct a diagnostic evaluation of physical restraint practice using the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework.
Evidence indicates that physical restraints are associated with adverse physical, emotional and psychological sequelae and do not consistently prevent intensive care unit (ICU) patient-initiated device removal. Nevertheless, physical restraints continue to be used extensively in ICUs both in Canada and internationally. Implementation science frameworks have not been previously used to diagnose, develop and guide the implementation of restraint minimisation interventions.
A prospective observational study of restrained patients in a 20-bed, academic ICU in Toronto, Canada.
Data collection methods included patient observation, electronic medical record review, and verbal check with the point-of-care nurses. Data were collected pertaining to framework domains of unit culture (restraint application/removal), evaluation capacity (documentation) and leadership (rounds discussion). The reporting of this study followed the STROBE guidelines.
A total of 102 restrained patients, 67 (66%) male and mean age 58 years (SD 1.92), were observed. All observed devices were wrist restraints. Restraint application and removal time was verified in 83 and 57 of 102 patients respectively. At application, 96.4% were mechanically ventilated and 71% sedated/unarousable. Nurses confirmed 71% were prophylactically restrained; 7.2% received restraint alternatives. Restraint removal occurred after interprofessional team rounds (87%), during daytime (79%) and following extubation (52.6%). Of the 923 discrete patient observation of physical restraint use, 691 (75%) were not documented. Of the 30 daytime interprofessional team rounds reviewed, physical restraint was discussed at 3 (10%).
In this single-centre study, a culture of prophylactic physical restraint was observed. Future facilitation of restraint minimisation warrants theoretically informed implementation strategies including leadership involvement to advance interprofessional collaboration.
The findings draw attention to the importance of a preliminary diagnostic study of the context prior to designing, and implementing, a physical restraint minimisation intervention.
使用综合促进卫生服务研究实施(i-PARIHS)框架对身体约束实践进行诊断评估。
证据表明,身体约束与身体、情绪和心理方面的不良后果有关,并且不能始终防止重症监护病房(ICU)患者自行移除设备。然而,在加拿大和国际上,身体约束仍然在 ICU 中广泛使用。实施科学框架以前没有用于诊断、制定和指导约束最小化干预措施的实施。
在加拿大多伦多的一家 20 张床位的学术 ICU 中对受约束的患者进行前瞻性观察研究。
数据收集方法包括患者观察、电子病历审查和与床边护士进行口头核对。收集的信息与单位文化(约束应用/移除)、评估能力(文档记录)和领导力(查房讨论)等框架领域有关。本研究的报告遵循 STROBE 指南。
共观察了 102 名受约束的患者,其中 67 名(66%)为男性,平均年龄 58 岁(SD 1.92)。所有观察到的设备均为腕部约束带。在 102 名患者中,分别有 83 名和 57 名患者的约束应用和移除时间得到验证。在应用时,96.4%的患者接受机械通气,71%的患者接受镇静/无法唤醒。护士确认 71%的患者是预防性约束;7.2%的患者接受了约束替代。约束的移除发生在多学科团队查房后(87%)、白天(79%)和拔管后(52.6%)。在 923 次对身体约束使用的离散患者观察中,有 691 次(75%)未记录。在 30 次白天多学科团队查房中,有 3 次(10%)讨论了身体约束。
在这项单中心研究中,观察到了预防性身体约束的文化。未来促进约束最小化需要理论上的实施策略,包括领导力的参与,以推进多学科合作。
这些发现提请注意在设计和实施身体约束最小化干预措施之前,对背景进行初步诊断研究的重要性。