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":"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。","authors":"Elena Luk, Lisa Burry, Shaghayegh Rezaie, Sangeeta Mehta, Louise Rose","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"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":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of critical care nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:立法、指导方针和认证标准要求尽量减少身体约束,但在加拿大和国际上的重症监护病房(icu)中,它们的使用仍然很普遍。在加拿大,身体约束是由医生规定的。然而,评估其需求、应用和移除主要是ICU护士的责任。目的:我们试图描述加拿大ICU护士对物理约束应用和终止的决策和实践,以及对危重成人使用物理约束之前尝试的替代措施。方法:我们对两家内科-外科icu(三级学术医院和大型社区教学医院)进行了前瞻性观察研究。结果:收集2011年10月至2012年9月141例患者的病历资料。大多数受限患者采用机械通气(n = 118, 84%)。在这141例患者确定的247个约束应用原因中,最常见的是躁动(n = 107, 43%)、躁动(n = 42, 17%)和作为预防措施(n = 42, 17%)。在167种由护士观察和记录的躁动行为中,拔气管内管或其他导管(n = 111, 66%)是最常被引用的。护士记录了46例(33%)患者在使用之前使用各种策略作为物理休息的替代方案。在尝试的96种替代策略中,包括重新定位和提醒的沟通是最常见的记录(n = 26,27%)。护士报告说,他们曾考虑在当班期间为61名(43%)患者解除束缚。最常见的解除约束的基本标准是冷静的病人(列出的104个原因中有51个,49%)。结论:我们的研究表明,患者的行为表明,躁动是最常见的原因物理约束应用。作为预防措施,在护士在床边的能力降低的情况下使用,以及在物理限制之前有限地使用替代措施,表明限制最小化可能不是最佳的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical care nurses' decisions regarding physical restraints in two Canadian ICUs: A prospective observational study.

Background: 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.

Objectives: 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.

Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study in two medical-surgical ICUs (tertiary academic and large community teaching hospital) of physical restraint use.

Results: 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%).

Conclusions: 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
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×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信