Investigating the association of mechanical restraint with somatic harmful outcomes: national register-based study.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
BJPsych Open Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1192/bjo.2024.799
Lone Baandrup, Marie Kruse
{"title":"Investigating the association of mechanical restraint with somatic harmful outcomes: national register-based study.","authors":"Lone Baandrup, Marie Kruse","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2024.799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coercive measures to manage disruptive or violent behaviour are accepted as standard practice in mental healthcare, but systematic knowledge of potentially harmful outcomes is insufficient.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To examine the association of mechanical restraint with several predefined somatic harmful outcomes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a population-based, observational cohort study linking data from the Danish national registers from 2007 to 2019. The primary analyses investigated the association of mechanical restraint with somatic adverse events, using panel regression analyses (within-individual analysis) to account for repeated exposures and outcomes. Secondary between-group analyses were performed with a control group exposed to types of coercion other than mechanical restraint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population comprised 13 022 individuals. We report a statistically significant association of mechanical restraint with thromboembolic events (relative risk 4.377, number needed to harm (NNH) 8231), pneumonia (relative risk 5.470, NNH 3945), injuries (relative risk 2.286, NNH 3240) and all-cause death (relative risk 5.540, NNH 4043) within 30 days after mechanical restraint. Estimates from the between-group analyses (comparing the exposed group with a control group of 22 643 individuals) were non-significant or indicated increased baseline risk in the control group. A positive dose-response analysis for cardiac arrest, injury and death supported a causative role of mechanical restraint in the reported associations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the observed absolute risk increases were small, the derived relative risks were non-negligible considering that less restrictive interventions are available. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware of the excess risk in future decisions on the use of mechanical restraint versus alternative interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"10 6","pages":"e205"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2024.799","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Coercive measures to manage disruptive or violent behaviour are accepted as standard practice in mental healthcare, but systematic knowledge of potentially harmful outcomes is insufficient.

Aims: To examine the association of mechanical restraint with several predefined somatic harmful outcomes.

Method: We conducted a population-based, observational cohort study linking data from the Danish national registers from 2007 to 2019. The primary analyses investigated the association of mechanical restraint with somatic adverse events, using panel regression analyses (within-individual analysis) to account for repeated exposures and outcomes. Secondary between-group analyses were performed with a control group exposed to types of coercion other than mechanical restraint.

Results: The study population comprised 13 022 individuals. We report a statistically significant association of mechanical restraint with thromboembolic events (relative risk 4.377, number needed to harm (NNH) 8231), pneumonia (relative risk 5.470, NNH 3945), injuries (relative risk 2.286, NNH 3240) and all-cause death (relative risk 5.540, NNH 4043) within 30 days after mechanical restraint. Estimates from the between-group analyses (comparing the exposed group with a control group of 22 643 individuals) were non-significant or indicated increased baseline risk in the control group. A positive dose-response analysis for cardiac arrest, injury and death supported a causative role of mechanical restraint in the reported associations.

Conclusions: Although the observed absolute risk increases were small, the derived relative risks were non-negligible considering that less restrictive interventions are available. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware of the excess risk in future decisions on the use of mechanical restraint versus alternative interventions.

调查机械束缚与躯体伤害结果的关联:基于国家登记的研究。
背景:目的:研究机械约束与几种预定义的躯体有害结果之间的关系:我们开展了一项基于人群的观察性队列研究,将 2007 年至 2019 年的丹麦国家登记数据联系起来。主要分析调查了机械束缚与躯体不良事件之间的关系,使用面板回归分析(个体内分析)来考虑重复暴露和结果。次要的组间分析是与暴露于机械束缚以外的胁迫类型的对照组一起进行的:研究对象包括 13 022 人。我们报告了机械约束与血栓栓塞事件(相对风险为 4.377,伤害所需人数为 8231)、肺炎(相对风险为 5.470,伤害所需人数为 3945)、受伤(相对风险为 2.286,伤害所需人数为 3240)以及机械约束后 30 天内的全因死亡(相对风险为 5.540,伤害所需人数为 4043)之间存在统计学意义上的显著关联。组间分析(将暴露组与由 22 643 人组成的对照组进行比较)得出的估计值不显著,或表明对照组的基线风险增加。对心脏骤停、受伤和死亡的正剂量反应分析表明,在所报告的关联中,机械约束起到了致病作用:尽管观察到的绝对风险增加很小,但考虑到可以使用限制性较小的干预措施,得出的相对风险是不可忽视的。临床医生和决策者在今后决定使用机械约束还是其他干预措施时,应注意超额风险。
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
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
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