Den-Ching A Lee1, Lauren M Robins2, J Simon Bell3, Velandai Srikanth4, Ralph Möhler5, Keith D Hill6, Debra Griffiths7, Terry P Haines2. 1. School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia. Electronic address: angel.lee@monash.edu. 2. School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia. 3. Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. 4. Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston Hospital, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia. 5. Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Center for Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. 6. School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) research centre, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia. 7. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Moorooduc Highway, Frankston, VIC 3199, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of physical and chemical restraints are common in residential aged care facilities worldwide. Restraint use can pose harm to residents even causing deaths. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the prevalence and variability in physical and chemical restraint use, and examine factors that may contribute to this variability of prevalence rates. METHODS: Six health science databases were searched from inception up to 21st January 2020. Quantitative studies investigating restraint use in residential aged care facilities that reported data from year 2000 onwards were included. Meta-analyses of binomial data using a random effect model were performed to pool proportions of physical or chemical restraints with 95% confidence intervals. Univariable meta-regression analyses were used to assess factors that may contribute to the variability in physical and chemical restraint prevalence. Multiple meta-regression analyses were performed where possible to construct models of factors contributing to these variations. RESULTS: Eighty-five papers were included. The pooled proportion of physical and chemical restraint use in residential aged care facilities were 33% and 32% respectively. Bedrails (44%) and benzodiazepines (42%) were the most prevalent forms of physical and chemical restraint respectively. Studies from North America (lower prevalence) [coefficient (95% CI): -0.15 (-0.27, -0.03)], measurement approaches using direct observation (higher prevalence) [0.17 (0.02, 0.33)] and a combination of multiple measurement approaches (higher prevalence) [0.17 (0.05, 0.29)] explained 25.5% of variability in the prevalence of physical restraint. Multiple meta-regression analyses were not performed to identify factors that may explain the observed variability in chemical restraint prevalence due to the small number of studies with data available. CONCLUSION: Variability in prevalence of physical restraint could be explained partly by different measurement approaches and geographical regions. Valid and reliable measurement approaches across different regions is required to understand cultural differences due to geographical region effects on the prevalence of physical restraint use.
BACKGROUND: Use of physical and chemical restraints are common in residential aged care facilities worldwide. Restraint use can pose harm to residents even causing deaths. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the prevalence and variability in physical and chemical restraint use, and examine factors that may contribute to this variability of prevalence rates. METHODS: Six health science databases were searched from inception up to 21st January 2020. Quantitative studies investigating restraint use in residential aged care facilities that reported data from year 2000 onwards were included. Meta-analyses of binomial data using a random effect model were performed to pool proportions of physical or chemical restraints with 95% confidence intervals. Univariable meta-regression analyses were used to assess factors that may contribute to the variability in physical and chemical restraint prevalence. Multiple meta-regression analyses were performed where possible to construct models of factors contributing to these variations. RESULTS: Eighty-five papers were included. The pooled proportion of physical and chemical restraint use in residential aged care facilities were 33% and 32% respectively. Bedrails (44%) and benzodiazepines (42%) were the most prevalent forms of physical and chemical restraint respectively. Studies from North America (lower prevalence) [coefficient (95% CI): -0.15 (-0.27, -0.03)], measurement approaches using direct observation (higher prevalence) [0.17 (0.02, 0.33)] and a combination of multiple measurement approaches (higher prevalence) [0.17 (0.05, 0.29)] explained 25.5% of variability in the prevalence of physical restraint. Multiple meta-regression analyses were not performed to identify factors that may explain the observed variability in chemical restraint prevalence due to the small number of studies with data available. CONCLUSION: Variability in prevalence of physical restraint could be explained partly by different measurement approaches and geographical regions. Valid and reliable measurement approaches across different regions is required to understand cultural differences due to geographical region effects on the prevalence of physical restraint use.
Authors: Elisa Ambrosi; Martina Debiasi; Jessica Longhini; Lorenzo Giori; Luisa Saiani; Elisabetta Mezzalira; Federica Canzan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lauriane Favez; Michael Simon; Michel H C Bleijlevens; Christine Serdaly; Franziska Zúñiga Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 7.538
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