1999
DOI: 10.1177/153331759901400302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcomes of nighttime physical restraint removal for severely impaired nursing home residents

Abstract: There is ample evidence that physical restraint reduction does not lead to increased falls or injuries. This study tests the effect of removing nighttime restraints by comparing two groups: Restrained in bed at pre- but not postintervention (n = 51), or restrained in bed at both pre- and post-intervention (n = 11). No differences in nighttime fall rates between the two groups were detected. Nighttime physical restraint removal does not lead to increases in falls from bed in older nursing home residents. Altho… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
18
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
(64 reference statements)
2
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A post-hoc subgroup analysis based on high, intermediate or mixed levels of nursing care showed a statistical difference between subgroups, with a reduction in falls in high- and intermediate-level care facilities, but not in studies or facilities with a mixed level of care. As there is no clear external evidence that could explain these subgroup results, and the finding is not completely consistent across studies, the finding is not considered credible (Guyatt 2011a), and no conclusion based on these subgroups is made. Subgroup analysis by level of cognition did not explain the heterogeneity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A post-hoc subgroup analysis based on high, intermediate or mixed levels of nursing care showed a statistical difference between subgroups, with a reduction in falls in high- and intermediate-level care facilities, but not in studies or facilities with a mixed level of care. As there is no clear external evidence that could explain these subgroup results, and the finding is not completely consistent across studies, the finding is not considered credible (Guyatt 2011a), and no conclusion based on these subgroups is made. Subgroup analysis by level of cognition did not explain the heterogeneity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…There is moderate credibility for this post-hoc subgroup analysis (Guyatt 2011a); however, we are uncertain of the effectiveness of this intervention in reducing the rate of falls as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Due to the contrast between the effectiveness of providing this intervention as a single intervention and its effectiveness when provided as a multifactorial intervention targeted at cognitively intact participants (Hill 2015; which further supports the credibility of the result found in the subgroup analysis within Haines 2011), no conclusion on the effectiveness of this intervention when delivered as a single intervention is made as this is likely to result in difficulty in interpretation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Restrictive siderails, defined as two raised full-length siderails [24], were considered as an intermediate measure and analyzed separately because they are frequently used to prevent bed-related falls during nighttime in long-term care settings [25]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, 144 subjects of the 463 were excluded due to variation in side rail status (n = 80) or any use of nighttime physical restraint (n = 64) during the 1‐year data collection period. The latter group was excluded because nighttime physical restraints were used to prevent bed‐related falls, although such restraint use does not decrease the risk of bed‐related falls 4 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%