Suppr超能文献

体弱老年人的安全评估:约束与未约束养老院居民的比较

Safety assessment for the frail elderly: a comparison of restrained and unrestrained nursing home residents.

作者信息

Schnelle J F, Mac Rae P G, Simmons S F, Uman G, Ouslander J G, Rosenquist L L, Chang B

机构信息

Borun Center for Gerontological Research, UCLA School of Medicine.

出版信息

J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994 Jun;42(6):586-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb06854.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To facilitate clinicians' judgement concerning physical restraint decisions by identifying potentially reversible injury risk factors that differentiate representative samples of restrained and unrestrained nursing home residents.

DESIGN

Comparison of restrained and unrestrained nursing home residents on a safety assessment for the frail elderly (SAFE) protocol.

SETTING

Long-term care facilities in the Greater Los Angeles Area.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred eight physically restrained and 111 unrestrained nursing home residents.

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Internal, Interrater, and test/retest reliability of the overall SAFE protocol and of the four major factors measured by SAFE; (2) The relationship of SAFE scores to expert judgment of resident injury risk; (3) Differences between large samples of restrained and unrestrained residents on specific SAFE score factors.

RESULTS

Two walking, one transition, and one judgment factor are reliably measured by the SAFE protocol. SAFE scores were significantly correlated with expert judgment of risk for injury and showed large differences between restrained and unrestrained residents, even after differences in ambulation ability between the two groups were accounted for.

CONCLUSION

The SAFE is a reliable protocol that measures behavioral factors related to falls and risk for injury among nursing home residents with a broad range of cognitive impairment. Factors that significantly differentiate restrained and unrestrained groups should be targeted for rehabilitation and remediation in physical restraint reduction efforts. Removing or changing restraints for the large sample (50%) of restrained residents who were not ambulatory will not significantly increase their mobility, since the majority of this group could not independently propel their wheelchairs. Increased mobility for the large group of both restrained and unrestrained residents will likely be realized only if restraint reduction programs are combined with interventions to improve both mobility and the specific behavioral performance factors measured by SAFE.

摘要

目的

通过识别可区分有身体约束和无身体约束的养老院居民代表性样本的潜在可逆性损伤风险因素,以促进临床医生对身体约束决策的判断。

设计

根据针对体弱老年人的安全评估(SAFE)方案,对有身体约束和无身体约束的养老院居民进行比较。

设置

大洛杉矶地区的长期护理机构。

参与者

108名有身体约束的养老院居民和111名无身体约束的养老院居民。

干预措施

无。

主要观察指标

(1)SAFE方案整体以及SAFE所测量的四个主要因素的内部、评分者间和重测信度;(2)SAFE评分与居民损伤风险专家判断之间的关系;(3)有身体约束和无身体约束居民大样本在特定SAFE评分因素上的差异。

结果

SAFE方案能可靠地测量两个行走、一个过渡和一个判断因素。SAFE评分与损伤风险专家判断显著相关,并且即使在考虑两组之间行走能力差异后,有身体约束和无身体约束的居民之间仍显示出很大差异。

结论

SAFE是一个可靠的方案,可测量与广泛认知障碍的养老院居民跌倒和损伤风险相关的行为因素。在减少身体约束的努力中,应针对能显著区分有身体约束和无身体约束组的因素进行康复和补救。对于大部分不能行走的有身体约束居民(50%),去除或改变约束不会显著提高他们的活动能力,因为该组中的大多数人无法独立推动轮椅。只有当减少约束计划与改善活动能力及SAFE所测量的特定行为表现因素的干预措施相结合时,才能使大量有身体约束和无身体约束居民的活动能力得到提高。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验