J Rachel Homer1, Sam Bass. 1. Anaesthesia Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. rachelhomer@doctors.net.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To discover whether any consensus exists among the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (APA) members regarding the use and acceptability (or otherwise) of physical restraint. BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition of children's right to be consulted regarding their healthcare, the issue of how to proceed when faced with a child unwilling to undergo induction of general anesthesia remains relatively unaddressed. METHODS: APA members were surveyed regarding their use or avoidance of physical restraint and alternate techniques to facilitate induction; factors affecting choice of technique; and extent of preoperative discussion. The anonymous online survey used both structured and free text responses. RESULTS: Of 596 surveys, 310 were returned, a 52% response rate. Use of physical restraint and extent of restraint employed declines with increasing child age. Distraction techniques are frequently employed for children under 6 years, with the use of sedative premedication increasing as child age increases. Urgency of procedure, developmental delay, and preoperative discussion all have an effect. Comments demonstrated a wide range of views and lack of consensus on what constitutes physical restraint, and what degree of restraint, if any, is acceptable. CONCLUSION: Our results are similar to the US Society of Pediatric Anesthesia members, suggesting this remains an issue internationally. Consideration of practices in other specialties gives some guidance. Our survey shows a range of views as to what physical restraint is or involves, and what constitutes acceptable practice regarding the use or avoidance of physical restraint. We were unable to demonstrate consensus.
OBJECTIVES: To discover whether any consensus exists among the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (APA) members regarding the use and acceptability (or otherwise) of physical restraint. BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition of children's right to be consulted regarding their healthcare, the issue of how to proceed when faced with a child unwilling to undergo induction of general anesthesia remains relatively unaddressed. METHODS: APA members were surveyed regarding their use or avoidance of physical restraint and alternate techniques to facilitate induction; factors affecting choice of technique; and extent of preoperative discussion. The anonymous online survey used both structured and free text responses. RESULTS: Of 596 surveys, 310 were returned, a 52% response rate. Use of physical restraint and extent of restraint employed declines with increasing child age. Distraction techniques are frequently employed for children under 6 years, with the use of sedative premedication increasing as child age increases. Urgency of procedure, developmental delay, and preoperative discussion all have an effect. Comments demonstrated a wide range of views and lack of consensus on what constitutes physical restraint, and what degree of restraint, if any, is acceptable. CONCLUSION: Our results are similar to the US Society of Pediatric Anesthesia members, suggesting this remains an issue internationally. Consideration of practices in other specialties gives some guidance. Our survey shows a range of views as to what physical restraint is or involves, and what constitutes acceptable practice regarding the use or avoidance of physical restraint. We were unable to demonstrate consensus.