RESUMEN

Background: Studies on agitation in internal medicine departments are scarce, especially regarding how doctors and nurses act in these situations. The objective of this study was to clarify how agitation is dealt with in these departments. Methods: This prospective observational study was performed in the internal medicine departments of four Portuguese hospitals. The researchers at each hospital contacted the nursing team that identifies patients who were agitated in the previous shifts. The researcher reviewed these patients' files, recording the research protocol's parameters. Results: During the study period, 331 patients were observed; 177 (54%) were female, and the median age was 80 years (19-99). Episodes of agitation occurred in 69 patients (21%); of them, 44 (64%) were female, and the median age was 84 years (31-98). In the first episode of agitation, the doctor on duty was called in 49 times (71%). These doctors prescribed a new medication for the crisis in 30 cases (43%). After the crisis, the assistant doctor recorded the episode in the patient file in 41 cases (59%). According to the medical notes, after the acute phase, in only 21 patients (30%), there was an attempt to clarify the cause of agitation. The prescription after the crisis was regular medication in 32 cases (46%), rescue medication in 27 (39%), and physical restraint in 9 (13%), isolated or in various combinations. Conclusion: This study suggests that there is room to improve how agitated patients are managed in internal medicine departments.

RESUMEN

OBJETIVE: To determine the influence of different factors involved in the decision to apply physical restraints (PR) in the management the elderly people with conduct disorders in an emergency department (ED) METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in the ED of the Hospital Universitario Severo Ochoa (Leganés, Madrid). We included 125 elderly people with disruptive behaviors and collected clinical, patient handling, organizational and environmental variables. Individuals who had undergone PR were analyzed to learn what factors were related to the final decision to restrain. RESULTS: 32.8% of the participants underwent PR. The aspects that most influenced the decision to restrain were those related to the organization and environment: specific staff training decreased the probability of restraint by 50% (P<.05) and good support from the whole team reduced the risk of using SF by up to 75% (P<.0005). Related patient handling factors such as verbal restraint, pain relief, family accompaniment and early mobilization significantly reduced the use of PR (P<.05). The only patient-dependent clinical aspect that increased the risk of SF was male sex (P<.05). Other factors unrelated to the probability of applying PR were, among others, nurse-patient ratio, type of behavior, age, or functional/cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: Exclusively clinical factors of the patient had little influence on the decision to restrain the elderly in an ED. However, environmental, organizational, and behavioral handling variables could favor more respectful alternatives and thus reduce the use of PR in the elderly with disruptive behaviors in the ED.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The emergence of COVID-19 profoundly influenced the dynamics within intensive care units, significantly altering the patient-family experience. As the pandemic unfolded, the longstanding practice of using physical restraints for patient safety persisted, introducing new challenges in healthcare settings. This study explored the ramifications of these enduring safety measures on family members of ICU patients during the pandemic, illuminating their lived experiences and the psychological impact of seeing their loved ones restrained. OBJECTIVES: To explore family members' lived experiences with physical restraints in the ICU during COVID-19 and inform improvements in patient-centered care. METHODS: Utilizing hermeneutic phenomenology, the study engaged ten family members in detailed interviews to gain an understanding of their experiences with ICU physical restraints during COVID-19. Conducted at a northeastern U.S. hospital, the collected narratives underwent thematic analysis within a sensemaking framework, yielding a profound understanding of family perspectives. RESULTS: Family members faced challenges in understanding and coping with physical restraints, revealing a need for improved healthcare system support for family sensemaking and well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The study advocates integrating empathetic communication and family engagement into ICU care practices, underlining the importance of sensemaking during healthcare crises.

RESUMEN

The use of physical restraints (PR) in healthcare settings, especially in psychiatric units, is a controversial topic. The attitude, knowledge, and practices of nurses towards PR can influence its application, which raises concerns about the balance between patient safety and individual rights. With mental disorders being a leading cause of disability globally, understanding the complexities surrounding PR use becomes paramount. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using multiple databases, including PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, The Cochrane Library, the Saudi Digital Library, and Google Scholar. The search spanned literature published up to December 2022, focusing on studies that explored the relationship between nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding PR in psychiatric settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to filter out relevant studies. From 220 records initially retrieved, 12 articles were identified for the final review. The reviewed studies highlighted a moderate knowledge and attitude among nurses concerning PR. Many nurses were found to be uncertain about the reasons for PR application and its alternatives. Educational interventions were emphasized in several studies as beneficial in improving nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and practices. However, inconsistencies were observed regarding the impact of these interventions on nurses' attitudes. Experience, higher education, and continuous training sessions were found to be correlated with better knowledge and more favourable attitudes towards PR. This review emphasizes the critical need for consistent training and education for nurses regarding PR, given the profound implications for patient care and safety. While educational interventions show promise in enhancing knowledge and practice, their impact on attitudes remains contested. Future research should consider the gaps identified in this review, including the exploration of alternatives to PR, larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies to understand the long-term effects of interventions.

RESUMEN

In intensive care units, patients are often restrained to ensure their safety, with physical restraints being the most commonly used method. However, physical restraints compromises the patient's freedom, health and comfort, and nurses often face moral dilemmas when deciding whether to use physical restraints. This article examines physical restraints through the four universal principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. Through these principles, the authors will critically explore whether the physical restraints of patients by nurses is ethical in practice and what moral issues exist. This paper also explores conflicts and moral dilemmas for nurses in this context. Finally, suggestions are made on changes to education and clinical practice.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Older adults with severe dementia are at increased risk of being physically restrained in nursing homes and acute care settings, but little is known about restraint use among those cared for at home. This study explores caregiver-reported use of restraints among community-dwelling older adults with severe dementia. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from 215 family caregivers, we describe restraint use among older adults with severe dementia living at home. We then use multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with restraint use. RESULTS: Nearly half (47%) of caregivers reported on older adults who had been subject to restraints. Most caregivers reporting restraint use suggested safety reasons, such as prevention of falls (68%), wandering (30%), and removal of catheters or feeding tubes (29%); and 44% indicated doctors or other health care providers were involved in the decision to restrain. Feeding tubes (OR = 4.16, 95% CI: 1.27-13.59) and physically aggressive agitation behaviors (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.09-3.40) were associated with higher odds of restraint use among older adults with severe dementia. Caregivers who received strong emotional support from friends (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21-0.95) were less likely to report restraint use while serving as a caregiver to others (OR = 2.77, 95% CI: 1.36-5.63) increased the odds of restraint use. CONCLUSIONS: The pervasiveness of restraint use is concerning and suggests a lack of evidence-based guidance and support for both caregivers and healthcare providers to prevent restraint use among older adults with severe dementia cared for at home.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Femoral artery puncture is still the most used surgical approach. Because the operation requires local anaesthesia, the patient may not be able to exert full self-control, and their upper and lower limbs and trunk need to be constrained by a protection device. OBJECTIVE: To explore the safe application effect of a new type of anti-movement protection device for upper and lower extremities, shoulders and chest in patients undergoing interventional therapy via the femoral artery approach. METHODS: This is a prospective randomised controlled study. A total of 230 patients were randomly divided into two groups: the study group (n= 115) and the control group (n= 115). The time needed to implement the restraint operation and the loosening of the restraint device in the two groups was recorded, and the satisfaction of surgeons and nurses was investigated. RESULTS: The time needed to perform restraint operation in the study group was significantly less than that in the control group (4.06 ± 0.61 min vs. 7.01 ± 0.76 min, P< 0.05). The satisfaction of surgeons and nurses with the use of the new protective device was significantly better than that of the conventional restraint band (P< 0.05). CONCLUSION: The new anti-movement protection device for upper and lower limbs, shoulders and chest can conveniently and quickly achieve effective protection and braking of patients, ensure the safety of surgery and improve satisfaction.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Restraints are often utilized in the emergency department (ED) to prevent patients from injuring themselves or others while managing their agitation in order to deliver appropriate medical care. Chemical and physical restraints are ordered at the discretion of the medical provider and typically employed after reasonable verbal de-escalation has been attempted. While health inequities and racial bias in medicine and healthcare have been well-established, information on the differences in the selection and use of restraints by race and ethnicity are scarce. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from HCA Healthcare ED and inpatient database with patient visits from 2016 to 2019 to evaluate the relationships between race and ethnicity and the utilization of restraints in the ED. Associations are reported using linear and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The study population included 12,229 unique ED admissions for patients 16 and older with diagnoses of aggression or agitation who had either chemical or physical restraints used. There was no statistically significant difference when comparing Black or other race to White patients and the type of restraint used. Hispanic patients received 0.206 fewer doses of chemical restraints compared to White patients (p = 0.008, 95% C.I. [-0.359, -0.053]) and were slightly less likely to receive physical restraints compared with White patients (p = 0.044, 95% C.I. [0.467, 0.989]), but there was no difference between use of physical restraint and Black or other patients compared to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this national sample of agitated and/or aggressive ED patients who were restrained, Hispanic patients were slightly less likely to receive physical restraints and received fewer doses of chemical restraints than White patients. There were no differences between Black or other patients compared to White patients in restraint type, number of doses of chemical restraint or time to application of either restraint type. This suggests that physicians apply the use of chemical restraints to agitated and aggressive ED patients based on factors that are not  associated with race and ethnicity.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physical restraints remain to be commonly used in agitated intensive care unit (ICU) patients worldwide, despite a lack of evidence on efficacy and safety and reports of detrimental short and long-term consequences, such as prolonged delirium and a longer ICU length of stay. Physical restraint minimization approaches have focused mainly on educational strategies and other non-pharmacological interventions. Combining these interventions with goal-directed light sedation therapy if needed may play an important contributory role in further reducing the use of physical restraints. The aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention (MCI) program, combining person-centered non-pharmacological interventions with goal-directed light sedation, compared to physical restraints. METHODS: A multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted in six Dutch ICUs. A power calculation based total of 480 (expected to become) agitated adult patients will be included in 26 months with a subsequent 2-year follow-up. Patients included in the control period will receive standard care with the current agitation management protocol including physical restraints. Patients included in the intervention period will be treated with the MCI program, consisting of four components, without physical restraints: education of ICU professionals, identification of patients at risk for agitation, formulation of a multidisciplinary person-centered care plan including non-pharmacological and medical interventions, and protocolized goal-directed light sedation using dexmedetomidine. Primary outcome is the number of days alive and outside of the ICU within 28 days after ICU admission. Secondary outcomes include length of hospital stay; 3-, 12-, and 24-month post-ICU quality of life; physical (fatigue, frailty, new physical problems), mental (anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder), and cognitive health; and 1-year cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This will be the first multicenter randomized controlled trial determining the effect of a combination of non-pharmacological interventions and light sedation using dexmedetomidine compared to physical restraints in agitated ICU patients. The results of this study, including long-term patient-centered outcomes, will provide relevant insights to aid ICU professionals in the management of agitated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05783505, registration date 23 March 2023.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the impact of coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic-related social distancing measures on the incidence of inpatient aggression at a public psychiatric hospital Methods: Data was gathered from the hospital's unusual incident (UI) database for the time period ranging from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Based on the implementation of major social distancing measures, March 6, 2020, was set as a cutoff time point to categorize aggressive events into pre-COVID and post-COVID groups. Data was analyzed using Chi-square tests and general linear modeling. The p-value was set at ≤0.05. RESULTS: After the implementation of social distancing measures, there was a decrease in the absolute number of inpatient aggressive events from 15.0/week to 12.6/week (mean difference: 2.4/week, p=0.032). However, this decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in hospital census. There was a decrease in the proportion of seven-day and 14-day post-admission aggressive events by 5.4% and 12.1%, respectively. Concurrently, there was a 4.9% increase in recurrent aggression. Emergency psychiatric medication administration and the use of physical restraint decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Consistent with previous results, this study reports a decrease in the incidence of inpatient aggression during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social distancing measures can be utilized as a tool to decrease the incidence of inpatient aggression and the use of physical restraints.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physical restraint use among patients hospitalized with dementia and behavioral disturbances has not been studied nationally in the United States. METHODS: National Inpatient Sample database years 2016 through 2020 were used to compare physically restrained and unrestrained patients with dementia and behavioral disturbances. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess patient outcomes. RESULTS: There were 991,605 patients coded for dementia with behavioral disturbances. Among these, physical restraints were used with 64,390 (6.5%) and not with 927,215 (93.5%). Patients in the restrained group were younger (mean age ± standard error: 78.7 ± 0.25 vs. 79.9 ± 0.34 ; p < 0.01) and more often male (59.0% vs. 45.8%; p < 0.01) compared to the unrestrained group. A higher proportion of Black patients were in the restrained group (15.2% vs. 11.8%; p < 0.01). Larger hospitals also made up a more significant proportion of restrained versus unrestrained patients (53.3% vs. 45.1%; p < 0.01). Those with physical restraints had longer lengths of stays (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = 2.6 days CI [2.2-3.0]; p < 0.01) and higher total hospital charges (aMD = $13,150 CI [10,827-15,472]; p < 0.01). There were similar adjusted odds for in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.0 [CI 0.95-1.1]; p = 0.28) and lower odds of being discharged to home after hospitalization (aOR = 0.74 [0.70-0.79]; <0.01) for patients with physical restraints compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with dementia and behavioral disturbances, those with physical restraints had greater hospital resource utilization outcomes. Attempts to limit physical restraint use whenever possible may improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Many nursing interventions are complex. They comprise different intervention elements (components) and aim to change processes or behaviours of individuals or groups. A framework of the British Medical Research Council comprises methodological recommendations for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. This narrative review describes the framework's methodological recommendations using an example of interventions to reduce physical restraints in hospital and long-term care settings, such as bedrails or belts in chairs and beds. In addition to the characteristics of the complex interventions, the development and theoretical foundation of the interventions as well as the feasibility test and evaluation is described.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physical restraints are frequently used in acute care hospitals. Their application is associated with negative outcomes, while their intended preventive effect is debated. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of physical restraints and associated outcomes on medical wards in a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study (January 2018 to December 2021). We included all adult medical in-patients and excluded patients with admission to the intensive care unit, short stays (length of stay (LOS) < 48 h), and patients declining informed consent. RESULTS: Of 11,979 admissions, the prevalence of patients with at least one restraint was 6.4% (n = 772). Sensor mats were used most frequently (73.0%, n = 666), followed by blanket restrictions (14.5%, n = 132), bedrails (8.8%, n = 80) and belts (3.7%, n = 34). On average, restraints were applied 19 h (standard deviation (SD) ± 161) before a fall. Average restraint duration was 42 h (SD ± 57). Patients with a restraint had longer LOS 8 days (IQR 5-14) vs. 5 days (IQR 3-9). Median nurses' time expenditure was 309 h (IQR 242-402) vs. 182 h (IQR 136-243) for non-restrained patients. Patients with restraints fell more often (22.5% vs. 2.7%) and were more likely to die (13.3% vs. 5.1%). These differences persisted after adjusting a regression model for important clinical confounders. We saw a decline in the duration of restraints over the years, but no variation between wards. CONCLUSION: Approximately 6% of medical patients, mostly older and severely ill, were affected by restraint use. For the first time, we report data over 4 years up to ward-level granularity.

RESUMEN

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of restraint reduction programs for nursing home care providers in enforcing physical restraint on residents and identify the best strategies for such programs. DESIGN: Systematic Review. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials published until February 2021 for systematic review. The systematic review captured multifactorial interventions, education and consultation measures, including nursing home residents' and care providers' results. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. RESULTS: In all seven trials, the interventions were led by a nurse specialist or unit leader and targeted at care providers. Five of the restraint reduction programs effectively reduced the rate of physical restraint use; two increased knowledge of restraint reduction for care providers; and one each promoted positive attitudes and behaviours. Duration of at least 6 weeks significantly improved the knowledge of care providers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that the use of physical restraints has negative physiological and psychological impacts on critically ill patients. The development of clinical practice guidelines is necessary for minimizing the use of physical restraints. OBJECTIVE: As part of a guideline adaptation project, this study aimed to formulate the direction and strength of recommendations for adapted guidelines of physical restraints in critical care. METHODS: Literature retrieval of guidelines and systematic reviews was performed and guideline steering committee discussions were conducted to develop an inquiry questionnaire. From February to April 2022, a two-round study, including 27 multidisciplinary experts, was conducted using the evidence to decision frameworks and Delphi methods. RESULTS: The 27 experts were from 22 of the 33 provinces/municipalities/autonomous regions of mainland China. For the first and second questionnaires, the recovery rates were 85.7% and 100%, respectively. In the first and second rounds, the average authoritative coefficients were 0.93 and 0.94, respectively. Regarding Kendall W values, the values were 0.555 and 0.120, respectively. A consensus was reached on 15 recommendations, including one strong recommendation, seven conditional recommendations and seven good practice statements. CONCLUSION: In the two rounds of consultations, a consensus was reached on 15 recommendations for the adapted physical restraint guidelines in critical care through the evidence to decision frameworks and Delphi methods. Recommendations in the adapted physical restraint guidelines are related to institutional and educational interventions, risk assessment, the management of patients' unsafe behaviours, pain, mechanical ventilation, sleep, family engagement, mobility, sedation, and delirium. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Based on our recommendations, we suggest nurses develop a physical restraint education bundle.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physical restraints are routinely employed to ensure patient safety in Japanese acute care. Little is known about nursing students' perspectives and how they begin to question their value and knowledge in the face of restraint experiences in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate nursing students' questions about patient restraints and how they understand the ethics of the use of restraints in nursing. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive research using narrative analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Experiential data were generated and thematically analyzed from semi-structured interviews with 16 nursing students who had completed their bachelor's degree program requirements. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The study was approved by academic and clinical ethics agencies. Participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Physical restraints were encountered in 16 incidents, 3 with children and 13 with older patients with dementia. Students struggled to comprehend the policies and protocols of restraint use and worried their use was primarily for security rather than therapeutic purposes. Five themes were identified: (1). Questioning the tension between person-centered care, patient autonomy, and restraints, (2). Questioning the nature of restraints in which participants analyzed the policies and protocols around restraint use, (3). Questioning the professional nursing self whereby students reflected on how restraint use challenged their nursing values, and (4). Questioning professional nursing practice, in which students explored how restraints fit within a nursing perspective and positioned themselves as patient advocates. Students encountering physical restraints should ask questions based on values of patient-centeredness, autonomy, and advocacy. There is a need for education that facilitates reflection and questioning so that it informs students' ethical thinking which may enhance nurse advocacy to reduce restraint use. CONCLUSIONS: Restraints provide contexts in which students must face tensions between nursing values and clinical reality. Further research on nursing education strategies within non-psychiatric settings is needed to reduce physical restraints.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Physical restraints are viewed as potentially dangerous objects for patient safety. Contemporary efforts mainly focus on preventing bad outcomes in restraint use, while little attention is paid under what circumstances physical restraints are applied harmlessly. The aim of this research was to understand how physical restraints are used by neurology/neurosurgery ward nurses in relation to the protocol. In ethnographic action research, the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) was used to map and compare physical restraints as part of daily ward care against the protocol of physical restraints. Comparison between protocol and actual practice revealed that dealing with restlessness and confusion is a collective nursing skill vital in dealing with physical restraints, while the protocol failed to account for these aspects. Supporting and maintaining this skillset throughout this and similar nursing teams can prevent future misguided application physical restraints, offering valuable starting point in managing patient safety for these potentially dangerous objects.

RESUMEN

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the use of physical restraints in aged care facilities(ACFs)and analyse its associated risk factors. BACKGROUND: Physical restraints have been widely used in ACFs worldwide, but they can cause physical and mental harm to older people. It is important to regulate the use of physical restraint. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational and correlational multicentre study. METHODS: By convenience sampling method, we selected eight ACFs in four representative regions of Hunan province, China, for this study. The ACF-related information was obtained by interviewing the managers and reviewing records. We conducted investigation and observation on the elderly in the ACFs to understand the use of physical restraints at three different times: 9:30-11:30, 16:00-18:00 and 19:30-21:30 on a working day. The STROBE checklist was followed for this cross-sectional study. RESULTS: This study found that the utilisation rate of physical restraints was 23.2%. The critical risk factors affecting the use of physical restrains include the following: (1) the ratio of nursing staff to the elderly residents; (2)whether there is a dementia care unit at the facility; (3) the number of elderly residents in each room; (4) the elderly residents' age, degree of education, marital status, care dependence and cognitive impairment; (5) whether the elderly has suffered from a stroke or senile dementia; (6) whether the elderly carries medical catheters. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of standardisation in the use of physical restraints in ACFs of central China. Chinese ACFs should develop guidelines and reduction measures to standardise the use of physical restraints, basing on the key factors affecting the use of physical restraints. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The use of physical restraints in ACFs is threatening the safety of the elderly residents. Understanding the implementation of physical restraint in ACFs can provide reference for reducing the use of physical restraint.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective Physical restraints are used in emergency departments (EDs) to address behavioral emergencies in situations in which less restrictive methods have failed. The objective of this study was to evaluate for associations between patient/visit characteristics and physical restraint use. Study Design This study was designed as a cross-sectional, retrospective study of all encounters at Kaiser Permanente Northern California EDs from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019, to evaluate differences in patient and visit characteristics between visits involving physical restraint use and those without. Methods Using electronic health record data, this study identified physical restraint use among ED encounters and extracted demographic, clinical, and facility characteristics. The authors calculated odds ratios for physical restraint placement, adjusting for patient and visit characteristics and accounting for within-patient clustering. Results Among 4,410,816 encounters (representing 1,791,673 patients), 6369 encounters (0.1%) involved physical restraint use among 5,554 patients (0.3%). Variables associated with the lowest odds of physical restraint included female sex, presentation to the ED in more recent years, and presence of intentional self-harm/suicidal ideation. Variables associated with the highest odds of physical restraint included higher visit acuity and weekend presentations to the ED. Discussion This study, which leveraged a large, diverse patient sample generalizable to the Northern California population, found several patient and visit characteristics associated with physical restraint use in the ED. Conclusion Results of this study may help identify patient groups and situational factors that are most likely to lead to physical restraint use and structural factors contributing to disparities in care, thereby informing interventions to reduce physical restraint use when possible.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Physical restraints in acute hospitals: A quantitative observational study as a starting point for the further development of quality management Abstract: Background: Despite the known associated risks and adverse events, physical restraints are mostly observed in daily care practice of long-term care. Comparatively few studies are available for normal wards. Research question/aim: The explorative cross-sectional study investigated prevalences, types and reasons of physical restraints in nine selected normal wards of a maximum care hospital. Methods: The prevalences and types of physical restraints were collected in the early and late shift in summer 2020 via direct observation using standardised observation forms. The reasons for the use were recorded via a standardised survey of the nursing staff. Results: In the early shift, 15 out of 167 patients had physical restraints (9%), in the late shift 23 out of 191 (12%). People over 80 years were most affected (n = 8; 23.5% and n = 14, 25.9%). The highest prevalence was found in the clinic for neurogeriatrics with 21.4% (n = 3) and 37.5% (n = 6). Bedside restraints were used particularly frequently (n = 14; 93.3% and n = 22, 95.7%, resp.). The physical restraints were predominantly justified with the protection against fall injuries (n = 8, 53.3% and n = 15, 65.2%). Conclusions: Raising awareness among nursing staff through training and other accompanying measures are starting points for reducing physical restraints. In order to achieve sustainable changes, the management level should initiate appropriate measures and consistently accompany their implementation.

Asunto(s)