Organizational factors associated with less use of restraints in older adults with dementia in acute care hospitals: A scoping review

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Mayumi Makino, Mayumi Kato, Sanae Naruse, Yukari Yoshie, Koji Eda
{"title":"Organizational factors associated with less use of restraints in older adults with dementia in acute care hospitals: A scoping review","authors":"Mayumi Makino, Mayumi Kato, Sanae Naruse, Yukari Yoshie, Koji Eda","doi":"10.1111/jjns.12620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveDementia affects more than 55 million people worldwide. Use of restraints for hospitalized older adults with dementia is a social issue that should be addressed systematically and should not depend on the characteristics of nurses. This study reviewed the literature on organizational factors associated with reducing use of restraints in older adults with dementia admitted to acute care hospitals.MethodsA scoping review was performed. Three databases were searched for papers that met our eligibility criteria. Factors related to restraint reduction were extracted, and results were deduced. Through inductive analysis, subthemes were categorized according to similarities and differences, which were then integrated into broader themes.ResultsSixteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence of restraints ranged from 5.1% to 80.0% depending on how the meaning of restraint was interpreted. The most common indications for restraints were history of falls and fall risk. Interdisciplinary screening for restraints was associated with reduced prevalence of restraints, with a 0.18‐fold (confidence interval [CI]: 0.12–0.24) reduction through use of a restraint decision flowchart and a 0.76‐fold (CI: 0.63–0.92) reduction through consultation with a psychiatrist. Interdisciplinary members included nurses, physicians, clinical psychologists, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and therapists.ConclusionsResearch is needed to introduce and develop an interdisciplinary restraint decision‐making system and to test its effectiveness. Important factors in implementing alternatives to restraints are the harmful effects of restraints, expertise in dementia, regular education on alternative methods, an inpatient environment that ensures patient safety, and the development of human resources.","PeriodicalId":50265,"journal":{"name":"Japan Journal of Nursing Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japan Journal of Nursing Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12620","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveDementia affects more than 55 million people worldwide. Use of restraints for hospitalized older adults with dementia is a social issue that should be addressed systematically and should not depend on the characteristics of nurses. This study reviewed the literature on organizational factors associated with reducing use of restraints in older adults with dementia admitted to acute care hospitals.MethodsA scoping review was performed. Three databases were searched for papers that met our eligibility criteria. Factors related to restraint reduction were extracted, and results were deduced. Through inductive analysis, subthemes were categorized according to similarities and differences, which were then integrated into broader themes.ResultsSixteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence of restraints ranged from 5.1% to 80.0% depending on how the meaning of restraint was interpreted. The most common indications for restraints were history of falls and fall risk. Interdisciplinary screening for restraints was associated with reduced prevalence of restraints, with a 0.18‐fold (confidence interval [CI]: 0.12–0.24) reduction through use of a restraint decision flowchart and a 0.76‐fold (CI: 0.63–0.92) reduction through consultation with a psychiatrist. Interdisciplinary members included nurses, physicians, clinical psychologists, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and therapists.ConclusionsResearch is needed to introduce and develop an interdisciplinary restraint decision‐making system and to test its effectiveness. Important factors in implementing alternatives to restraints are the harmful effects of restraints, expertise in dementia, regular education on alternative methods, an inpatient environment that ensures patient safety, and the development of human resources.
急症护理医院中对患有痴呆症的老年人较少使用束缚措施的组织因素:范围界定审查
目标全世界有 5500 多万人患有痴呆症。对住院的老年痴呆症患者使用束缚措施是一个社会问题,应该系统地加以解决,而不应取决于护士的特点。本研究综述了与减少在急症护理医院住院的老年痴呆症患者中使用约束相关的组织因素的文献。我们在三个数据库中搜索了符合我们资格标准的论文。提取了与减少约束相关的因素,并对结果进行了推导。通过归纳分析,根据相似性和差异性对次主题进行分类,然后将其整合为更广泛的主题。根据对束缚含义的解释,束缚的发生率从 5.1% 到 80.0% 不等。最常见的约束指征是跌倒史和跌倒风险。跨学科限制措施筛查与限制措施发生率的降低有关,通过使用限制措施决策流程图,限制措施发生率降低了0.18倍(置信区间[CI]:0.12-0.24),通过咨询精神科医生,限制措施发生率降低了0.76倍(置信区间[CI]:0.63-0.92)。跨学科成员包括护士、医生、临床心理学家、药剂师、呼吸治疗师和治疗师。结论需要开展研究来引入和开发跨学科约束决策系统,并检验其有效性。实施束缚替代方法的重要因素包括束缚的有害影响、痴呆症方面的专业知识、关于替代方法的定期教育、确保患者安全的住院环境以及人力资源的开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Japan Journal of Nursing Science is the official English language journal of the Japan Academy of Nursing Science. The purpose of the Journal is to provide a mechanism to share knowledge related to improving health care and promoting the development of nursing. The Journal seeks original manuscripts reporting scholarly work on the art and science of nursing. Original articles may be empirical and qualitative studies, review articles, methodological articles, brief reports, case studies and letters to the Editor. Please see Instructions for Authors for detailed authorship qualification requirement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信