Physical restraint use among nursing home residents: A comparison of two data collection methods

Abstract

Background: In view of the issues surrounding physical restraint use, it is important to have a method of measurement as valid and reliable as possible. We determined the sensitivity and specificity of physical restraint use a) reported by nursing staff and b) reviewed from medical and nursing records in nursing home settings, by comparing these methods with direct observation.

Restraint use among nursing home residents: cross‐sectional study and prospective cohort study

“…Agreement was excellent suggesting high validity of data. Laurin et al. (2004) have shown that nursing staff interviews can also be used as collection method on data of restraint use.…”

“…This cross-sectional study is the first determining the prevalence of physical restraints in nearly 2400 residents from 30 nursing homes by direct observation, which is undoubtedly the most valid and reliable method (Laurin et al 2004). The Values are cluster-adjusted percentages (95% confidence interval) and intra-cluster correlation coefficients (ICCC).…”

“…Agreement was excellent suggesting high validity of data. Laurin et al (2004) have shown that nursing staff interviews can also be used as collection method on data of restraint use. Our study suggests that future restraint frequency collection can also rely on documentation of trained nurses.…”

Nurses' Use of Physical Restraints in Four Turkish Hospitals

“…Rate of physical restraint use was 7% to 17% in acute and residential settings (Evans, Wood, & Lambert, 2002), 0% to 59% in nursing homes (Ejaz, Folmar, Kaufman, Rose, & Goldman, 1994; Hamers, Gulpers, & Strik, 2004; Myers, Nikoletti, & Hill, 2001). Various physical restraint methods were used at different rates in different care units: in nursing homes, 29% to 18.9% restraint belts, 12.9% to 14.4% lap trays, 5.1% to 25.3% vests, 2.9% to 10.5% gerichairs in Australia (Retsas, 1998; Retsas & Crabbe, 1998); in ICUs, 9.6% unilateral wrist, 67.0% bilateral wrist, 2.1% unilateral ankle, 5.3% four extremities, 13.8% bilateral wrist/four extremities alternately, 1.1% four extremities/chest restraint alternately, 1.1% bilateral wrist/four extremities/chest restraint alternately in Korea (Choi & Song, 2003); in nursing homes and long term care units, 23.6% fixed tray table, 12.7% belt, 4% vest, 0.5% wrist, and 33.7% any physical restraint devices in Canada (Laurin, Voyer, Verreault, & Durand, 2004). Higher rates of physical restraint use are thought to increase various complications in patients.…”

Efficient and Accurate Measurement of Physical Restraint Use in Acute Care

“…Some reports did not state how prevalence was measured ( Jensen et al 1998;Wells, Brown, & McClymont, 1994) or lacked suffi cient detail to allow replication. A comparison of direct observation, nurse interview, and medical-nursing records in nursing home and long-term care units revealed that both of the latter two methods were valid and reliable, but nurse interview yielded higher sensitivity and specifi city than record review (Laurin, Voyer, Verreault, & Durand, 2004). No such comparsions are found in the literature for acute care.…”