Restraint reduction in general hospital care by preventive patient involvement: a pilot study.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Silvia Thomann, Isabelle Barbezat, Karin Thomas, Sandra Siegrist-Dreier, Chantal Britt, Sabine Molls, Sabine Hahn, Dirk Richter, Kai-Uwe Schmitt
{"title":"Restraint reduction in general hospital care by preventive patient involvement: a pilot study.","authors":"Silvia Thomann, Isabelle Barbezat, Karin Thomas, Sandra Siegrist-Dreier, Chantal Britt, Sabine Molls, Sabine Hahn, Dirk Richter, Kai-Uwe Schmitt","doi":"10.1186/s12877-025-06015-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For general hospital settings, effective restraint reduction strategies are lacking. Patient involvement is proven to be useful in restraint reduction in mental healthcare and in long-term care settings. Since such an approach has never been investigated in a general hospital setting, we investigated whether and how patient involvement regarding restraint reduction is feasible in such a setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pilot study following a participatory action research design was conducted. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were applied to develop and pilot an intervention to reduce restraint by preventive involvement of patients (aged 65+) in Switzerland. The intervention entailed reflecting on the potential risk of restraint use together with the patient within 24 h of admission and jointly defining possible prevention measures. The intervention was piloted for one month on one ward. Data collection for the qualitative evaluation included interviews with eight patients, five nurses, two ward managers and one clinical nurse specialist. These data were analysed by means of content analysis. Data collection for the quantitative evaluation consisted of a survey of nurses and an extraction of data from the electronic patient files. These data were descriptively analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The evaluation comprised the files of 177 patients (pre to post pilot). It was found that that prevalence of restraint was lower during the pilot phase than before (4.8% vs. 10.2%), although a similar number of patients were found to be at a potential risk of restraint use (51.6% vs. 53.3%). In addition, considerably more patients with a potential restraint risk had restraint prevention measures documented (53.1% vs. 10.2%). From the perspective of the nursing staff, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was not provided. The intervention was considered to be too time-consuming and the target group too unspecific.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proactive and structured involvement of patients (aged 65+) in the prevention of restraint use might be an approach to reduce restraint use in a general hospital. Patients were positive about being addressed on the topic during the nursing admission interview. However, the effort was regarded to be high. Limiting the intervention to electively admitted patients should be considered to lower the burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"25 1","pages":"358"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12090649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06015-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: For general hospital settings, effective restraint reduction strategies are lacking. Patient involvement is proven to be useful in restraint reduction in mental healthcare and in long-term care settings. Since such an approach has never been investigated in a general hospital setting, we investigated whether and how patient involvement regarding restraint reduction is feasible in such a setting.

Methods: A pilot study following a participatory action research design was conducted. Qualitative and quantitative approaches were applied to develop and pilot an intervention to reduce restraint by preventive involvement of patients (aged 65+) in Switzerland. The intervention entailed reflecting on the potential risk of restraint use together with the patient within 24 h of admission and jointly defining possible prevention measures. The intervention was piloted for one month on one ward. Data collection for the qualitative evaluation included interviews with eight patients, five nurses, two ward managers and one clinical nurse specialist. These data were analysed by means of content analysis. Data collection for the quantitative evaluation consisted of a survey of nurses and an extraction of data from the electronic patient files. These data were descriptively analysed.

Results: The evaluation comprised the files of 177 patients (pre to post pilot). It was found that that prevalence of restraint was lower during the pilot phase than before (4.8% vs. 10.2%), although a similar number of patients were found to be at a potential risk of restraint use (51.6% vs. 53.3%). In addition, considerably more patients with a potential restraint risk had restraint prevention measures documented (53.1% vs. 10.2%). From the perspective of the nursing staff, feasibility and acceptability of the intervention was not provided. The intervention was considered to be too time-consuming and the target group too unspecific.

Conclusions: The proactive and structured involvement of patients (aged 65+) in the prevention of restraint use might be an approach to reduce restraint use in a general hospital. Patients were positive about being addressed on the topic during the nursing admission interview. However, the effort was regarded to be high. Limiting the intervention to electively admitted patients should be considered to lower the burden.

通过预防性患者参与减少一般医院护理中的约束:一项试点研究。
背景:对于一般医院设置,缺乏有效的约束减少策略。事实证明,患者参与有助于减少精神卫生保健和长期护理环境中的约束。由于这种方法从未在普通医院环境中进行过调查,因此我们调查了在这种环境中患者参与约束减少是否可行以及如何可行。方法:采用参与式行动研究设计进行初步研究。定性和定量方法应用于开发和试点干预措施,以减少瑞士患者(65岁以上)预防性参与的约束。干预包括在入院24小时内与患者一起反思约束使用的潜在风险,并共同确定可能的预防措施。干预措施在一个病房试行了一个月。质性评估的数据收集包括对8名患者、5名护士、2名病房管理员和1名临床专科护士的访谈。采用内容分析法对这些数据进行分析。定量评估的数据收集包括对护士的调查和从电子患者档案中提取数据。对这些数据进行描述性分析。结果:评估包括177例患者的档案(试验前至试验后)。研究发现,在试点阶段,约束的患病率低于之前(4.8%对10.2%),尽管发现有使用约束的潜在风险的患者数量相似(51.6%对53.3%)。此外,有更多潜在约束风险的患者有约束预防措施(53.1%对10.2%)。从护理人员的角度来看,没有提供干预的可行性和可接受性。干预被认为太耗时,目标群体太不明确。结论:65岁以上患者积极、有组织地参与预防约束使用可能是减少综合医院约束使用的一种方法。在护理住院面谈期间,患者对该主题的讨论持积极态度。然而,这一努力被认为是很高的。应考虑将干预限制在选择性入院的患者中,以减轻负担。
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
BMC Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
873
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.
×
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