[Ethics of care: Assessment of the ethical issues in the protocols or consensuses on mechanical restraint in force in Spain]. / Ética de los cuidados: valoración de los contenidos éticos en los protocolos o consensos de contención mecánica vigentes en España.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical restraints are widely used in health care practice, despite the numerous ethical conflicts they raise. The aim of this study is to evaluate the ethical considerations contemplated in the current protocols on mechanical restraint in Spain. METHOD: Systematic review in PubMed, WOS and Scopus, Google and Google Scholar. An ad hoc list of 30 items was used to evaluate the ethical content of the protocols. The quality of guidelines was assessed with AGREE II. RESULTS: The need for informed consent (IC) is reflected in 72% of the documents, the IC model sheet is included in only 41% of them, the rest of the analyzed characteristics on IC are fulfilled in percentages between 6% (the document includes the need to reevaluate the indication for IC) and 31% (the document contemplates to whom it should be requested). More than 20 ethical contents are reflected in 31% of them and less than 10 in 19% of the guidelines. The quality of the guides, according to AGREE II, ranged from 27 to 116 points (maximum possible 161), with a mean score of 68.7. Only 9% of the documents were classified as high quality. Finally, the correlation between ethical content and quality measured with AGREE II was 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of ethical contents in guidelines on mechanical restraints is very high. The ethical requirements to be included in protocols, consensus or Clinical Practice Guidelines should be defined.

Exploring psychiatric patient restraints: Balancing safety, ethics, and patient rights in mental healthcare.

Restraint, often linked with limiting an individual's freedom of movement, has become a focal point of extensive discussion and evaluation within the realm of mental healthcare. Striking a delicate balance between ensuring individual safety and minimizing reliance on restraint methods poses a significant challenge. In mental health inpatient settings, the prevalent forms of restraint encompass physical, chemical, environmental, and psychological methods. Paradoxically, the consequences of employing restraint can be severe, ranging from injuries and cognitive decline to sedation and, in extreme cases, fatalities. This paper seeks to offer a nuanced exploration of the landscape surrounding psychiatric patient restraints, considering both global perspectives and specific insights from the Indian context. The guidelines outlined in India's Mental Healthcare Act of 2017, which governs the use of restraint on individuals suffering with mental illnesses, are also examined in detail.

Should One Kind of Freedom Be Restricted to Promote Another?

Due to restraints' consequences for personal liberty and dignity, the threshold to apply restraints is understandably high and heavily regulated. However, there can be clinical scenarios in which restraint use can facilitate a patient's freedom. This article considers such a case and examines conditions under which using restraints offers therapeutic benefit for patients with traumatic brain injuries.

When Structural Inequity Is Ubiquitous, Can Force Ever Be Compassionate?

This article contextualizes and challenges race, class, and gender inequity in psychiatric use of force. In particular, this article examines (1) how uses of force-seclusion, restraint, compulsion-have been codified in policy and law, (2) inequity in force utilization, and (3) connections between systemic oppression and individuals' responses-including fear and retraumatization-to feeling threatened by force in clinical settings. This article proposes multilevel strategies to abolish inequity in uses of force in clinical settings and questions whether it is ever possible to use force compassionately where inequity persists.

Ending Restraint of Incarcerated Individuals Giving Birth.

Advocates have long suggested making shackling incarcerated people during childbirth illegal. Yet exceptions would likely still allow prison personnel to implement restraint and leave clinicians no course for freeing a patient. This article argues that clinicians' assessments of laboring individuals' clinical needs must be prioritized, ethically and legally. This article also explains that, without strong policies in place, some clinicians will not feel empowered to demand that a patient be freed during labor. Beyond prohibiting restraint of laboring individuals, health care organizations must support clinicians seeking to execute their ethical duties to care well and justly for patients. Toward this end, this article proposes a model policy.

Application of Joanna Briggs Institute physical restraint standards to critical emergency department patients following CONSORT guidelines.

To explore the effect of Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) physical restraint standards in improving physical restraint in critical and emergency department patients.Enrolled 300 critical patients admitted in our hospital's emergency department from January to December 2019: 150 patients admitted January to June 2019 as control group and 150 patients admitted July to December 2019 as observation group. Routine restraints were applied in control group. Emergency department nurses in the observation group received thematic and practical JBI standardized training. This included pre-restraint assessment, principles of physical restraint, informed consent, using a restraint decision-making wheel, and alternatives to physical restraint. The incidence of restraint-associated adverse events (e.g., skin bruising, swelling) and restraint utilization rate were examined between 2 groups.The incidence of adverse events and the restraint utilization rate were significantly lower in the observation group (P < .05).The application of JBI physical restraint standards for emergency department patients can effectively reduce the incidence of adverse events and the restraint utilization rate.

[Ethical questions regarding the medical care of adults with disabilities]. / Questions éthiques soulevées par la prise en charge médicale des adultes en situation de handicap.

Medical care of adults with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities, can be ethically difficult. Several questions arise frequently. Can we administer a life-saving treatment that could impact negatively the patient's quality of life when the patient isn't able to give consent? During this Covid-19 period, can the use of chemical or physical restraints be considered as mistreatment, whereas the aim is to protect others? These are situations where the ethical question holds a central role. Although each clinical situation is unique, this article highlights, through four clinical cases, the ethical principles that should guide physicians in their decision-making process.

La prise en charge médicale des adultes en situation de handicap, notamment ceux souffrant de déficience mentale, peut se révéler difficile d'un point de vue éthique. Plusieurs questions se posent fréquemment. Peut-on proposer un traitement vital mais qui risque d'impacter la qualité de vie du patient sans pouvoir obtenir son consentement ? En période de Covid-19, l'utilisation de moyens de contention chimique ou physique peut-elle être considérée comme de la maltraitance alors qu'on cherche à protéger autrui ? Autant de situations où la question éthique prend une place centrale. Si chaque cas est évidemment différent, nous vous proposons, à travers quatre vignettes cliniques, de mettre en lumière les principes éthiques accompagnant le médecin dans son processus décisionnel.

The role of online ethics consultation on mental health.

BACKGROUND: Nurses experience moral distress when they cannot do what they believe is right or when they must do what they believe is wrong. Given the limited mechanisms for managing ethical issues for nurses in Japan, an Online Ethics Consultation on mental health (OEC) was established open to anyone seeking anonymous consultation on mental health practice. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To report the establishment of the Online Ethics Consultation and describe and evaluate its effectiveness. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. RESEARCH DESIGN: This evaluation describes the outcomes of 5 years of operation of the Online Ethics Consultation on mental health in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: The Online Ethics Consultation received 12 emails requesting consultation. Consultees included mental health nurses, psychiatrists, and service users. FINDINGS: The most common questions directed to the service were about seclusion and physical restraint. Response time from receipt of email to sending a reply was between 1 and 14 days. Despite the disappointing number of consultations, feedback has been positive. DISCUSSION: The Online Ethics Consultation was established to assist morally sensitive nurses in resolving their ethical problems through provision of unbiased and encouraging advice. Mental health care in Japan has been less than ideal: long-term social hospitalization, seclusion, and restraint are common practices that often lead to moral distress in nurses and the questions received reflected this. The head of the Online Ethics Consultation sent a supportive, facilitative response summarizing the opinions of several consultants. CONCLUSION: This study provides key information for the establishment of an online ethics resource the adoption of which has the potential to improve the experience of nurses, allied health and clients of mental health services. This paper has implications for services concerned with improving patient care, managing nurses' moral distress, building ethics into decision-making.

Restraints and seclusion in psychiatry: striking a balance between protection and coercion. Critical overview of international regulations and rulings.

Restraint and seclusion (R&S) measures in psychiatric settings are applied worldwide, despite poor scientific evidence to back up their effectiveness. The medical, ethical and medico-legal implications of coercive interventions are broad-ranging and multifaceted. The review aims to shed a light on the most relevant and meaningful standards that have been laid out by international treaties, supranational institutions (United Nations, Council of Europe, World Health Organization), scientific institutions (American Medical Association, Australian Department of Health), legislative bodies and courts of law. Several court cases are herein expounded upon, with a close focus on meaningful analysis, decisions and conclusions that have laid the groundwork for a different, more restrictive and more clearly defined approach towards R&S imposed upon psychiatric patients. It is reasonable to assume that changing norms, civil rights enforcement, court rulings and new therapeutic options have influenced the use of R&S to such an extent that such measures are among the most strictly regulated in psychiatric practice; health care providers should abide by a strict set of cautionary rules when making the decision to resort to R&S, which must never be put in place as a substitute for patient-centered therapeutic planning. Case law shows that R&S should only be weighed in terms of their effectiveness towards therapeutic goals. Being able to prove that R&S was employed as part of a therapeutic path rather than used to maintain order or to exact punishment may go a long way towards shielding operators against negligence lawsuits and litigation.

Factors behind ethical dilemmas regarding physical restraint for critical care nurses.

BACKGROUND: Physical restraint is among the commonly used methods for ensuring patient safety in intensive care units. However, nurses usually experience ethical dilemmas over using physical restraint because they need to weigh patient autonomy against patient safety. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore factors behind ethical dilemmas for critical care nurses over using physical restraint for patients. DESIGN: This is a qualitative study using conventional content analysis approach, as suggested by Graneheim and Lundman, to analyze the data. METHODS: Seventeen critical care nurses were purposefully recruited from the four intensive care units in Tehran, Iran. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and were concurrently analyzed through conventional content analysis as suggested by Graneheim and Lundman. ETHICAL CONSIDERATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran with the code: IR.IUMS.REC.1397.795. Before interviews, participants were provided with explanations about the aim of the study, the confidentiality of the data, their freedom to participate, and the right to withdraw the study, and their free access to the study findings. Finally, their consents were obtained, and interviews were started. RESULTS: Factors behind ethical dilemmas for critical care nurses over using physical restraint were categorized into three main categories, namely the outcomes of using physical restraint, the outcomes of not using physical restraint, and emotional distress for nurses. The outcomes of using physical restraint were categorized into the three subcategories of ensuring patient safety, physical damage to patients, and mental damage to the patient. The outcomes of not using physical restraint fell into two subcategories, namely the risks associated with not using physical restraint and legal problems for nurses. Finally, the two subcategories of the emotional distress for nurses main category were nurses' negative feelings about restraint use and uncertainty over the decision on physical restraint use. CONCLUSION: Decision-making for restraint use is often associated with ethical dilemmas, because nurses need to weight the outcomes of its use against the outcomes of not using it and also consider patient safety and autonomy. Health authorities are recommended to develop clear evidence-based guidelines for restraint use and develop and implement educational and counseling programs for nurses on the principles of ethical nursing practice, patient rights, physical restraint guidelines and protocols, and management of emotional, ethical, and legal problems associated with physical restraint use.

Moral Experiences of Crisis Management in a Child Mental Health Setting: A Participatory Hermeneutic Ethnographic Study.

Restraints and seclusion are routinely used in child mental health settings for conflict and crisis management, but raise significant ethical concerns. Using a participatory hermeneutic ethnographic framework, we studied conflict and crisis management in a child mental health setting offering care to children aged 6-12 years old in Quebec, Canada. The use of this framework allowed for an in-depth examination of the local imaginaries, of what is morally meaningful to the people in the setting, in addition to institutional norms, structures and practices. Data collection involved participant observation, interviews, and documentation review, with an interpretive framework for data analysis. We argue that the prevalent view of children shared by staff members as "incomplete human becomings" led to the adoption and legitimization of authoritative norms, structures and practices guided largely by a behavioral approach, which sometimes led to an increased use of control measures for reasons other than imminent harm. Children experienced these controlling practices as abusive and hindering the development of trusting relationships, which impeded the implementation of more collaborative approaches staff members sought to put in place to prevent the use of control measures. Study results are discussed in light of conceptions of children as moral agents.

Restraint in paediatrics: A delicate balance.

Patient restraint in health care is currently under intense review. There are two disparate groups that should be considered. First, infants and young children are commonly restrained while undergoing simple medical procedures such as venepuncture or immunisation, and this practice may be better framed as 'hugging' not 'holding'. Second, there is a distinct but significant group of children and adolescents with serious psychiatric or organic illness with behavioural disturbances necessitating restraint, who are the primary focus of this paper. Nevertheless, the balance between restraining any young person in health care and causing preventable harm is delicate: any form of child restraint, whether physical, chemical or seclusion, merits ethical reflection and should be undertaken judiciously. All clinicians should prioritise the dignity and privacy of the young person while weighing the vulnerability of this cohort of patients.

Convergence and divergence: An analysis of mechanical restraints.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric nurses are regularly confronted with the uses and effects of control interventions such as mechanical restraints. Although there are evident tensions in the literature regarding the use of mechanical restraints, very little research has focused on the lived and embodied experience of their use, whether from the patient's perspective or the perspective of nursing staff responsible for their application. RESEARCH AIMS: (1) to gain access to the bodily phenomenon of being placed in mechanical restraints; (2) to give voice to the intimate experiential understanding of this experience; and (3) through phenomenological interpretation, to understand the subjective processes and meaning-making of this experience. RESEARCH DESIGN: For this research, we adopted a distinctly ethics-oriented application of the methodology known as interpretative phenomenological analysis, that is, the interpretive dimension of the research focused on ethical practice in mental healthcare - one that is informed by experiential accounts of the lived body. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: A total of 40 in-depth semi-structured, nondirected interviews with both nurses (n = 21) and patients (n = 19) we conducted to meet the aims of this article. Participants were recruited from an inpatient psychiatric unit of a Canadian general hospital. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The research received research ethics board clearance from both the hospital where the study took place and the University of Ottawa. FINDINGS: The comparative analysis is presented under the following headings: (1) context of care, (2) meaning of quality of care, (3) emotional reactions and nurse-patient relationship, (4) meeting the needs and (5) need for alternatives. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: The research findings are discussed in light of current literature and implications for practice.

A qualitative study of health professionals' views on the holding of children for clinical procedures: Constructing a balanced approach.

Children undergoing clinical procedures can experience fear, uncertainty, and anxiety which can cause them to become upset and resist procedures. This study aimed to capture an international perspective of how health professionals report they would act if a child was upset and resisted a procedure. An online questionnaire, distributed through network sampling, used three vignettes to elicit qualitative open text responses from health professionals. Seven hundred and twelve professionals participated, resulting in 2072 pieces of text across the three vignettes. Many professionals reported that they would use distraction and spend time to inform and engage children in making choices about their procedure. However, most professionals indicated that if a child became uncooperative they would hold or instruct the holding of the child in order to get the procedure done 'as quickly as possible'. The findings demonstrate that professionals experience difficulty in balancing the different agendas, rights and priorities within the momentum which can build during a clinical procedure, often resulting in the child's voice and rights being undermined. A more balanced approach could be facilitated by a 'clinical pause' that would equip professionals with the time to consider children's expressed wishes and explore alternative approaches to holding.

The Conditions for Ethical Application of Restraints.

Despite the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of physical restraints, their use in patients is widespread. The best ethical justification for restraining patients is that it prevents them from harming themselves. We argue that even if the empirical evidence supported their effectiveness in achieving this aim, the use of restraints would nevertheless be unethical, so long as well-known exceptions to informed consent fail to apply. Specifically, we argue that ethically justifiable restraint use demands certain necessary and sufficient conditions. These conditions are that the physician obtained informed consent for their application, that their application be medically appropriate, and that restraints be the least liberty-restricting way of achieving the intended benefit. It is a further question whether their application is ever medically appropriate, given the dearth of evidence for their effectiveness.

[Restraint in geriatric care, an overview]. / La contention en gériatrie, état des lieux.

Restraint is a deprivation of liberty which in certain, clearly codified situations is a necessary part of the care process. The multidisciplinary objective evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio must take into consideration the person's dignity. The situation is often encountered in geriatric care where the fundamental principles are the maintaining of autonomy or the functional improvement of the patient or resident.

[Restraint in geriatric care and caregivers' self-examination]. / Contention en gériatrie et questionnement soignant.

The practice of restraint in geriatric care leads caregivers to examine their own practice. It is a matter of respecting the elderly patient while assuring their safety and being true to one's professional values. Reflecting on the issue collectively as a team is a potential strategy for providing the best possible response. This article analyses some examples at Grenoble-Alpes University hospital.