The Canadian journal of critical care nursing最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Critical care nurses' decisions regarding physical restraints in two Canadian ICUs: A prospective observational study. 加拿大两家icu重症监护护士关于身体约束的决定:一项前瞻性观察研究。
Elena Luk, Lisa Burry, Shaghayegh Rezaie, Sangeeta Mehta, Louise Rose
{"title":"Critical care nurses' decisions regarding physical restraints in two Canadian ICUs: A prospective observational study.","authors":"Elena Luk, Lisa Burry, Shaghayegh Rezaie, Sangeeta Mehta, Louise Rose","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Legislation, guidelines and accreditation standards cal for the minimization of physical restraints, yet their use remains common in intensive care units (ICUs) both in Canada and internationally. In Canada, physical restraints are prescribed by physicians. However, assessment of their need, application, and removal are primarily the responsibility of ICU nurses.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We sought to describe Canadian ICU nurses' decision-making and practices of physical restraint application and discontinuation, as well as alternative measures attempted prior to their use for critically ill adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, observational study in two medical-surgical ICUs (tertiary academic and large community teaching hospital) of physical restraint use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We collected physical restraint data from the medical records of 141 patients from October 2011 to September 2012. Most restrained patients were mechanically ventilated (n = 118, 84%). Of the 247 reasons for restraint application identified for these 141 patients, agitation (n = 107, 43%), restlessness (n = 42, 17%) and use as a precautionary measure (n = 42, 17%) were the most commonly documented. Of the 167 behaviours observed and documented by nurses as indicative of agitation, pulling at the endotracheal tube or other lines/tubes (n = 111, 66%) was most commonly cited. Nurses documented the use of various strategies as an alternative to physical rest raint prior to their use for 46 (33%) patients. Of the 96 alternative strategies attempted, communication comprising reorientation and reminders was the most frequently documented (n = 26, 27%). Nurses reported having considered removing restraints during their shift for 61 (43%) patients. The criterion most commonly deemed essential for restraint removal was a calm patient (51 of the 104 reasons listed, 49%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study suggests that patient behaviour indicative of agitation was the most common reason for physical restraint application. Use as a precautionary measure and in situations where nurses' ability to be present at the bedside was reduced, as well as the limited use of alternative measures prior to physical restraint suggest restraint minimization may not be optimal.</p>","PeriodicalId":91413,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing","volume":"26 4","pages":"16-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143588637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Critical thinking. 批判性思维。
The Canadian journal of critical care nursing Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI: 10.5840/inquiryctnews19893419
K. Dryden-Palmer
{"title":"Critical thinking.","authors":"K. Dryden-Palmer","doi":"10.5840/inquiryctnews19893419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews19893419","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91413,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing","volume":"26 4 1","pages":"5-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71212318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
0
×
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×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信