Literature DB >> 15355522

Prevalence of patients subjected to constraint in Norwegian nursing homes.

Øyvind Kirkevold1, Knut Engedal.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A recent questionnaire showed that different kinds of constraint such as physical restraint, electronic surveillance, use of force or pressure in medical treatment and in activities of daily living (ADL) are frequently used in Norwegian nursing homes. The study did not include information at patient level, and except for studies about physical restraints, we have not found any studies reporting the prevalence of various forms of constraint. AIM: To describe the prevalence of various types of constraint in Norwegian nursing homes. MATERIALS AND
METHOD: A structured interview was carried out with the primary carers of a random sample of 1501 patients from 222 nursing-home wards in 54 municipalities representing all five health regions in Norway. Data were collected from regular units (RUs) and special care units (SCUs) for persons with dementia. Episodes of constraint during 1 week were recorded. Five main groups of constraint were aggregated, mechanical restraint, nonmechanical restraint, electronic surveillance, force or pressure in medical examination or treatment and force or pressure in ADL.
RESULTS: Patients (36.7%) in RUs and 45.0% of the patients in SCUs were subjected to any constraint. Most frequent was use of mechanical restraint (23.3% in RUs; 12.8% in SCUs) and use of force or pressure in ADL (20.9% in SCUs; 16.6% in RUs). Use of force or pressure in medical examination or treatment was more frequent used in SCUs (19.1%) compared with RUs (13.5%). Nonmechanical restraint was less frequently used (8.3% in SCUs; 3.0% in RUs) and electronic surveillance was seldom used (7.2% in RUs; 0.9% in SCUs).
CONCLUSION: The use of constraint is a problem in Norwegian nursing homes. Studies are needed to learn more about why constraint is used, and if there is patient or ward characteristics that can explain the use of constraint.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15355522     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00278.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci        ISSN: 0283-9318


  8 in total

1.  Use of physical restraint in nursing homes: clinical-ethical considerations.

Authors:  C Gastmans; K Milisen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Predictors of uptake and adherence to the use of hip protectors among nursing-home residents.

Authors:  Hege Bentzen; Astrid Bergland; Lisa Forsén
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2008-08-22

Review 3.  Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints in long-term geriatric care.

Authors:  Ralph Möhler; Tanja Richter; Sascha Köpke; Gabriele Meyer
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-02-16

4.  Uptake and adherence with soft- and hard-shelled hip protectors in Norwegian nursing homes: a cluster randomised trial.

Authors:  H Bentzen; L Forsén; C Becker; A Bergland
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Patient safety in inpatient mental health settings: a systematic review.

Authors:  Bethan Thibaut; Lindsay Helen Dewa; Sonny Christian Ramtale; Danielle D'Lima; Sheila Adam; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Stephanie Archer
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information.

Authors:  David Wikstøl; Reidar Pedersen; Morten Magelssen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Nursing home admission during the first year after hospitalization - the contribution of cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Anne-Sofie Helvik; Randi Helene Skancke; Geir Selbæk; Knut Engedal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Definition and Measurement of Physical and Chemical Restraint in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lauren M Robins; Den-Ching A Lee; J Simon Bell; Velandai Srikanth; Ralph Möhler; Keith D Hill; Terry P Haines
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.