Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce physical restraints in critical care units.

Physical restraint use in critical care units is a frequent low-value care practice influenced by numerous factors creating a local culture. The translation of evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice is scarce so, the analysis of interventions to de-adopt this practice is needed. This update aims to describe and identify nonpharmacological interventions that contribute to minimising the use of physical restraints in adult critically ill patients. Interventions are classified into two groups: those that include education alone and those that combine training with one or more components (multicomponent interventions). These components include less restrictive restraint alternatives, use of physical and cognitive stimulation, decision support tools, institutional multidisciplinary committees, and team involvement. The heterogeneity in the design of the programmes and the low quality of the evidence of the interventions do not allow us to establish recommendations on their effectiveness. However, multicomponent interventions including training, physical and cognitive stimulation of the patient and a culture change of professionals and the organisations towards making restraints visible might be the most effective. The implementation of these programmes should underpin on a prior analysis of each local context to design the most effective-tailored combination of interventions to help reduce or eliminate them from clinical practice.

The use of mechanical restraint in critical care units: Characterisation, application standards and related factors. Results of a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and characterise the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in critical care units (CCU) in terms of frequency and quality of application and to study its relationship with pain/agitation-sedation/delirium, nurse:patient ratio and institutional involvement. METHOD: Multicentre observational study conducted in 17 CCUs between February and May 2016. The observation time per CCU was 96 h. The main variables were the prevalence of restraint, the degree of adherence to MR recommendations, pain/agitation-sedation/delirium monitoring and institutional involvement (protocols and training of professionals). RESULTS: A total of 1070 patients were included. The overall prevalence of restraint was 19.11%, in patients with endotracheal tube (ETT) 42.10% and in patients without ETT or artificial airway it was 13.92%. Adherence rates between 0% and 40% were obtained for recommendations related to non-pharmacological management and between 0% and 100% for those related to monitoring of ethical-legal aspects. The lower prevalence of restraint was correlated with adequate pain monitoring in non-communicative patients (P < .001) and with the provision of training for professionals (P = .020). An inverse correlation was found between the quality of the use of MR and its prevalence, both in the general group of patients admitted to CCU (r = -.431) and in the subgroup of patients with ETT (r = -.521). CONCLUSIONS: Restraint is especially frequently used in patients with ETT/artificial airway, but is also used in other patients who may not meet the use profile. There is wide room for improvement in non-pharmacological alternatives to the use of MC, ethical and legal vigilance, and institutional involvement. Better interpretation of patient behaviour with validated tools may help limit use of MR.

Physical restraint in critical care units from the experience of doctors and nursing assistants: In search of an interdisciplinary interpretation. / La contención mecánica en unidades de cuidados críticos desde la experiencia de los médicos y técnicos en cuidados auxiliares de enfermería: buscando una lectura interdisciplinar.

OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to explore the experience of doctors and nursing assistants in the management of physical restraint (PR) in critical care units. METHOD: A multicentre phenomenological study that included 14 critical care units (CCU) in Madrid (Spain). The CCU were stratified according to their use of physical restraint: "frequently used" versus "seldom used". Three focus groups were formed: the first comprised nursing assistants from CCUs that frequently used physical restraint, the second comprised nursing assistants from CCUs that seldom used physical constraint, and the final group comprised doctors from both CCU subtypes. Sampling method: purposive. DATA ANALYSIS: thematic content analysis. Data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Four principle themes emerged: 1) concept of safety and risk (patient safety versus the safety of the professional), 2) types of restraint, 3) professional responsibilities (prescription, recording, and professional roles) and 4) "zero restraint" paradigm. The conceptualisation regarding the use of physical contentions shows differences in some of the principal themes, depending on the type of CCU, in terms of policies, use and management of physical constraint (frequently used versus seldom used). CONCLUSIONS: The real reduction in the use of physical restraint in CCU must be based on one crucial point: acceptance of the complexity of the phenomenon. The use of physical restraint observed in the different CCU is influenced by individual, group and organisational factors. These factors will determine how doctors and nursing assistants interpret safety and risk, the centre of care (patient or professional-centred care), the concept of restraint, professional responsibilities and interventions, interactions of the team and the leadership.

Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD. / Valoración de la analgesia, sedación, contenciones y delirio en los pacientes ingresados en unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas. Proyecto ASCyD.

AIMS: Main aim: To determine the Spanish intensive care units (ICU) that assess and record pain levels, sedation/agitation, delirium and the use of physical restraint (PR) as standard practice. Secondary aims: To determine the use of validated assessment tools and to explore patients' levels of pain and sedation/agitation, the prevalence of delirium, and the use of PR. METHOD: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study using an ad hoc survey with online access that consisted of 2 blocks. Block I: with questions on the unit's characteristics and routine practice; Block II: aspects of direct care and direct assessments of patients admitted to participating units. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight units and 1574 patients participated. The pain of communicative patients (CP) was assessed and recorded as standard in 109 units (69%), the pain of non-communicative patients (NCP) in 84 (53%), sedation/agitation in 111 (70%), and delirium in 39 units (25%). There was recorded use of PR in 39 units (25%). Validated scales were used to assess the pain of CP in 139 units (88%), of NCP in 102 (65%), sedation/agitation in 145 (92%), delirium in 53 units (34%). In 33 units (21%) pain, sedation/agitation and delirium of PC and NPC was assessed, and in 8 of these units there was a specific PR protocol and register. Among the patients who could be assessed, an absence of pain was reported in 57%, moderate pain in 27%; 48% were calm and collaborative, and 10% agitated; 21% had PR, and 12.6% of the patients had delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of pain, sedation and delirium is demonstrated, and low percentages of agitation and delirium achieved. We observed a high percentage of patients with pain, and moderate use of PC. We should generalise the use of protocols to assess, prevent and treat pain and delirium by appropriately managing analgesia, sedation, and individual and well-considered use of PC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874).

Psychometric validation of the behavioral indicators of pain scale for the assessment of pain in mechanically ventilated and unable to self-report critical care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of the behavioral indicators of pain scale (ESCID) when applied to a wide range of medical and surgical critical patients. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective observational study was designed to validate a scale measuring instrument. SETTING: Twenty Intensive Care Units of 14 hospitals belonging to the Spanish National Health System. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 286 mechanically ventilated, unable to self-report critically ill medical and surgical adult patients. PROCEDURE: Pain levels were measured by two independent evaluators simultaneously, using two scales: ESCID and the behavioral pain scale (BPS). Pain was observed before, during, and after two painful procedures (turning, tracheal suctioning) and one non-painful procedure. MAIN VARIABLES: ESCID reliability was measured on the basis of internal consistency using the Cronbach-α coefficient. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were measured. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between ESCID and BPS. RESULTS: A total of 4386 observations were made in 286 patients (62% medical and 38% surgical). High correlation was found between ESCID and BPS (r=0.94-0.99; p<0.001), together with high intra-rater and inter-rater concordance. ESCID was internally reliable, with a Cronbach-α value of 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). Cronbach-α coefficients for ESCID domains were high: facial expression 0.87 (95%CI 0.84-0.89), calmness 0.84 (95%CI 0.81-0.87), muscle tone 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), compliance with mechanical ventilation 0.70 (95%CI 0.63-0.75) and consolability 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). CONCLUSION: ESCID is valid and reliable for measuring pain in mechanically ventilated unable to self-report medical and surgical critical care patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01744717.

[Therapeutic restraint management in Intensive Care Units: Phenomenological approach to nursing reality]. / Manejo de la inmovilización terapéutica en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos: aproximación fenomenológica a la realidad enfermera.

AIMS: To identify nursing experience on physical restraint management in Critical Care Units. To analyse similarities and differences in nursing experience on physical restraint management according to the clinical context that they are involved in. METHOD: A multicentre phenomenological study was carried out including 14 Critical Care Units in Madrid, classified according to physical restraint use: Common/systematic use, lacking/personalised use, and mixed use. Five focus groups (23 participants were selected following purposeful sampling) were convened, concluding in data saturation. Data analysis was focused on thematic content analysis following Colaizzi's method. FINDINGS: Six main themes: Physical restraint meaning in Critical Care Units, safety (self-retreat vital devices), contribution factors, feelings, alternatives, and pending issues. Although some themes are common to the 3 Critical Care Unit types, discourse differences are found as regards to indication, feelings, systematic use of pain and sedation measurement tools. CONCLUSIONS: In order to achieve real physical restraint reduction in Critical Care Units, it is necessary to have a deep understanding of restraints use in the specific clinical context. As self-retreat vital devices emerge as central concept, some interventions proposed in other settings could not be effective, requiring alternatives for critical care patients. Discourse variations laid out in the different Critical Care Unit types could highlight key items that determine the use and different attitudes towards physical restraint.