Dataset Information

Physical restraints in intensive care units: a national questionnaire survey of physical restraint use for critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in Japan.

ABSTRACT: Aims:Physical restraints are often used for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation to protect important medical equipment. However, they have adverse physical and psychological effects and could pose ethical hazards. Physical restraint use varies by country, but so far there is little understanding of the frequency of physical restraint use among intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Japan. The present study aims to describe the frequency of physical restraint use among Japanese patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Additionally, it attempts to verify the hypothesis that insufficient human resources have increased the frequency of physical restraints. Methods:We undertook a cross-sectional online open anonymous survey of ICU nurses using a self-administered questionnaire to examine the use of physical restraints for patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in Japan. Results:We obtained 175 responses, of which 46 were excluded. Of the respondents, 43% reported that physical restraints were used for more than 75% of mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive care units with a higher frequency of physical restraint use had a significantly greater number of beds per nurse compared to those with a lower frequency; however, after adjusting for the number of beds in the ICU and hospital type in a logistic regression analysis, the number of beds per nurse was no longer significantly related to the use of physical restraints. Conclusions:Physical restraints are commonly used among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in Japan. A systematic approach to reducing physical restraint use among mechanically ventilated patients is needed.

SUBMITTER: Unoki T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6328904 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physical restraints in intensive care units: a national questionnaire survey of physical restraint use for critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in Japan.

Unoki Takeshi T Sakuramoto Hideaki H Ouchi Akira A Fujitani Shigeki S

Acute medicine & surgery 20181206 1

<h4>Aims</h4>Physical restraints are often used for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation to protect important medical equipment. However, they have adverse physical and psychological effects and could pose ethical hazards. Physical restraint use varies by country, but so far there is little understanding of the frequency of physical restraint use among intensive care unit (ICU) patients in Japan. The present study aims to describe the frequency of physical restraint use among Japanese pati ...[more]

PMID: 30652000

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPhysical restraint (PR) use in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with higher rates of self-extubation and prolonged ICU length of stay. Our objectives were to describe patterns and predictors of PR use.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of analgosedation, antipsychotic, neuromuscular blocker, and PR practices in 51 Canadian ICUs. Data were collected prospectively for all mechanically ventilated adults admitted during a two-week period. We tested for patient, treatment, and hospital characteristics that were associated with PR use and number of days of use, using logistic and Poisson regression respectively.ResultsPR was used on 374 out of 711 (53%) patients, for a mean number of 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 4.0) days. Treatment characteristics associated with PR were higher daily benzodiazepine dose (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11), higher daily opioid dose (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06), antipsychotic drugs (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48), agitation (Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) >4) (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 9.29), and sedation administration method (continuous and bolus versus bolus only) (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48). Hospital characteristics associated with PR indicated patients were less likely to be restrained in ICUs from university-affiliated hospitals (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). Mainly treatment characteristics were associated with more days of PR, including: higher daily benzodiazepine dose (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), daily sedation interruption (IRR 3.44, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.10), antipsychotic drugs (IRR 15.67, 95% CI 6.62 to 37.12), SAS <3 (IRR 2.62, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.35), and any adverse event including accidental device removal (IRR 8.27, 95% CI 2.07 to 33.08). Patient characteristics (age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, admission category, prior substance abuse, prior psychotropic medication, pre-existing psychiatric condition or dementia) were not associated with PR use or number of days used.ConclusionsPR was used in half of the patients in these 51 ICUs. Treatment characteristics predominantly predicted PR use, as opposed to patient or hospital/ICU characteristics. Use of sedative, analgesic, and antipsychotic drugs, agitation, heavy sedation, and occurrence of an adverse event predicted PR use or number of days used.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a relationship between the application of physical restraints and negative physiological and psychological effects on critically ill patients. Many organizations have supported and advocated minimizing the use of physical restraints. However, it is still common practice in many countries to apply physical restraints to patients in intensive care.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of various non-pharmacological interventions used to minimize physical restraints in intensive care units and provide a supplement to the evidence summary for physical restraints guideline adaptation.MethodsBased on the methodology of umbrella review, electronic databases, including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo/Psyc Articles/Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, and Wanfang Data, were searched to identify systematic reviews published from January 2016 to December 2020. Two independent reviewers undertook screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was evaluated by AMSTAR 2. Evidence quality of each intervention was assessed according to GRADE. The corrected covered area was calculated as a measure of overlap.ResultsA total of 47 systematic reviews were included in the umbrella review, of which six were evaluated as high quality, five were of moderate quality, and the rest were of low or critically low quality. The corrected covered area range was from 0.0 to 0.269, which indicated that there was mild overlap between systematic reviews. The included systematic reviews evaluated various types of non-pharmacological interventions for minimizing physical restraints in intensive care units, which included multicomponent interventions involving healthcare professionals' education, family engagement/support, specific consultations and communication, rehabilitation and mobilization (rehabilitation techniques, early mobilization, inspiratory muscle training), interventions related to reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation (weaning modes or protocols, ventilator bundle or cough augmentation techniques, early tracheostomy, high-flow nasal cannula), and management of specific symptoms (delirium, agitation, pain, and sleep disturbances).ConclusionThe number of systematic reviews related to physical restraints was limited. Multicomponent interventions involving healthcare professionals' education may be the most direct non-pharmacological intervention for minimizing physical restraints use in intensive care units. However, the quality of evidence was very low, and conclusions should be taken with caution. Policymakers should consider incorporating non-pharmacological interventions related to family engagement/support, specific consultations and communication, rehabilitation and mobilization, interventions related to reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation, and management of specific symptoms as part of the physical restraints minimization bundle. All the evidence contained in the umbrella review provides a supplement to the evidence summary for physical restraints guideline adaptation.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=242586, identifier: CRD42021242586.

Project description:IntroductionRecent evidence suggests that choice of fluid used for resuscitation may influence mortality in critically ill patients.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study in 391 intensive care units across 25 countries to describe the types of fluids administered during resuscitation episodes. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between patient, prescriber and geographic factors and the type of fluid administered (classified as crystalloid, colloid or blood products).ResultsDuring the 24-hour study period, 1,955 of 5,274 (37.1%) patients received resuscitation fluid during 4,488 resuscitation episodes. The main indications for administering crystalloid or colloid were impaired perfusion (1,526/3,419 (44.6%) of episodes), or to correct abnormal vital signs (1,189/3,419 (34.8%)). Overall, colloid was administered to more patients (1,234 (23.4%) versus 782 (14.8%)) and during more episodes (2,173 (48.4%) versus 1,468 (32.7%)) than crystalloid. After adjusting for patient and prescriber characteristics, practice varied significantly between countries with country being a strong independent determinant of the type of fluid prescribed. Compared to Canada where crystalloid, colloid and blood products were administered in 35.5%, 40.6% and 28.3% of resuscitation episodes respectively, odds ratios for the prescription of crystalloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.69), 0.18 (0.10 to 0.32) and 3.43 (1.71 to 6.84) respectively; odds ratios for the prescription of colloid in China, Great Britain and New Zealand were 1.72 (1.20 to 2.47), 4.72 (2.99 to 7.44) and 0.39 (0.21 to 0.74) respectively. In contrast, choice of fluid was not influenced by measures of illness severity (for example, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score).ConclusionsAdministration of resuscitation fluid is a common intervention in intensive care units and choice of fluid varies markedly between countries. Although colloid solutions are more expensive and may possibly be harmful in some patients, they were administered to more patients and during more resuscitation episodes than crystalloids were.

Dataset Information

Physical restraints in intensive care units: a national questionnaire survey of physical restraint use for critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in Japan.

Publications

Physical restraints in intensive care units: a national questionnaire survey of physical restraint use for critically ill patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets