Mohammad Suliman1. 1. Community and Mental Health Nursing Department, Al al-Bayt University, Mafraq, Jordan.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of physical restraint among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients in Jordan and to identify predicting factors and consequences. BACKGROUND: Physical restraint has been widely used among intensive care unit patients in many countries. Despite the benefits it offers in protecting patients from disrupting their medical treatment, it has been reported that restraint has many physical and psychological adverse effects. METHOD: A cross-sectional and observational study was conducted during a period of 3 months (April-June 2017). A sample of 321 intensive care unit patients was selected from five governmental and one university-affiliated hospital in the north and middle of Jordan. The Restraint Prevalence Tool was used to collect data from the patients. RESULTS: The study found that the prevalence of physical restraint use on intensive care unit patients in Jordan was 35.8%. This prevalence rate varied across the units, ranging from 33.3%-57.1%. The factors that predicted physical restraint use were younger age (odds ratio = 0.96), large intensive care unit (odds ratio = 6.14), the surgical intensive care unit (odds ratio = 10.36), the night shift (odds ratio = 3.57), a conscious patient (odds ratio = 2.24) and longer hospital stay (odds ratio = 1.07). However, hospital type, gender and being on chemical restraint were not significantly associated with physical restraint. Many patients were observed to have physical complications from restraint use, such as redness, bruising and oedema. CONCLUSION: Physical restraint is a common practice in Jordan. Not following standard restraint practices may lead to many physical complications among intensive care unit patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study recommends implementing more policies/guidelines inside Jordanian hospitals. In addition, nursing education programs on the safe use of physical restraint should be implemented.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of physical restraint among mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients in Jordan and to identify predicting factors and consequences. BACKGROUND: Physical restraint has been widely used among intensive care unit patients in many countries. Despite the benefits it offers in protecting patients from disrupting their medical treatment, it has been reported that restraint has many physical and psychological adverse effects. METHOD: A cross-sectional and observational study was conducted during a period of 3 months (April-June 2017). A sample of 321 intensive care unit patients was selected from five governmental and one university-affiliated hospital in the north and middle of Jordan. The Restraint Prevalence Tool was used to collect data from the patients. RESULTS: The study found that the prevalence of physical restraint use on intensive care unit patients in Jordan was 35.8%. This prevalence rate varied across the units, ranging from 33.3%-57.1%. The factors that predicted physical restraint use were younger age (odds ratio = 0.96), large intensive care unit (odds ratio = 6.14), the surgical intensive care unit (odds ratio = 10.36), the night shift (odds ratio = 3.57), a conscious patient (odds ratio = 2.24) and longer hospital stay (odds ratio = 1.07). However, hospital type, gender and being on chemical restraint were not significantly associated with physical restraint. Many patients were observed to have physical complications from restraint use, such as redness, bruising and oedema. CONCLUSION: Physical restraint is a common practice in Jordan. Not following standard restraint practices may lead to many physical complications among intensive care unit patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study recommends implementing more policies/guidelines inside Jordanian hospitals. In addition, nursing education programs on the safe use of physical restraint should be implemented.
Authors: María Acevedo-Nuevo; María Teresa González-Gil; María Concepción Martin-Arribas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.390