Prehospital Restraint Use in Pediatric Patients With Mental and Behavioral Health Emergencies.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pediatric emergency care Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1097/PEC.0000000000003298
Caroline Cummings, Lynn Babcock, Yin Zhang, Sang Hoon Lee, Hamilton Schwartz, Olga Semenova, Wendy J Pomerantz
{"title":"Prehospital Restraint Use in Pediatric Patients With Mental and Behavioral Health Emergencies.","authors":"Caroline Cummings, Lynn Babcock, Yin Zhang, Sang Hoon Lee, Hamilton Schwartz, Olga Semenova, Wendy J Pomerantz","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aims of the study are to characterize children with mental and behavioral health conditions (MBH) transported by emergency medical services (EMS) and examine differences in patient, emergency department (ED), and EMS transport characteristics based on restraint interventions during EMS transport.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study of EMS patients with MBH crises, aged 5-18, transported to 2 pediatric EDs over 9 years. Demographic and ED data were collected electronically; EMS data were extracted manually from prehospital care records. Field interventions studied included pharmacologic and mechanical restraints by EMS clinicians. Univariate analysis compared variables between patients who received EMS restraints and those who did not and multivariable logistic regression identified patient factors independently associated with EMS restraint use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 10,264 patients transported by EMS for MBH crises, 1400 encounters were randomly selected, with 768 records available. EMS restraint interventions were used in 73 (9.5%) patients: 5 (0.7%) received only pharmacologic restraints, 58 (7.6%) received only physical restraints, and 10 (1.3%) received both. Those who received EMS restraints were more likely to be younger (35.6% vs 19.6%, P = 0.001), male (71.2% vs 44.6%, P < 0.0001), and had longer scene times (13 vs 9 min). Restraint use was more common when patients were picked up from schools (30.1% vs 14.8%, P = 0.007). EMS-restrained patients were also more likely to receive physical (12.3% vs 2.3%, P < 0.0001), mechanical (15.1% vs 1.0%, P < 0.0001), or pharmacologic (24.7% vs 3.9%, P < 0.0001) restraints in the ED. Predictors of EMS restraint use were male sex (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-5.17) and being picked up from schools (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.81), whereas age group, race, and insurance type were not independent predictors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nearly 1 in 10 pediatric patients experiencing mental health crises and transported by EMS required restraint interventions in the field. Male patients, younger aged children, and those picked up from school represent a distinct and vulnerable population that could benefit from specialized prehospital care to manage agitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003298","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of the study are to characterize children with mental and behavioral health conditions (MBH) transported by emergency medical services (EMS) and examine differences in patient, emergency department (ED), and EMS transport characteristics based on restraint interventions during EMS transport.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of EMS patients with MBH crises, aged 5-18, transported to 2 pediatric EDs over 9 years. Demographic and ED data were collected electronically; EMS data were extracted manually from prehospital care records. Field interventions studied included pharmacologic and mechanical restraints by EMS clinicians. Univariate analysis compared variables between patients who received EMS restraints and those who did not and multivariable logistic regression identified patient factors independently associated with EMS restraint use.

Results: Among 10,264 patients transported by EMS for MBH crises, 1400 encounters were randomly selected, with 768 records available. EMS restraint interventions were used in 73 (9.5%) patients: 5 (0.7%) received only pharmacologic restraints, 58 (7.6%) received only physical restraints, and 10 (1.3%) received both. Those who received EMS restraints were more likely to be younger (35.6% vs 19.6%, P = 0.001), male (71.2% vs 44.6%, P < 0.0001), and had longer scene times (13 vs 9 min). Restraint use was more common when patients were picked up from schools (30.1% vs 14.8%, P = 0.007). EMS-restrained patients were also more likely to receive physical (12.3% vs 2.3%, P < 0.0001), mechanical (15.1% vs 1.0%, P < 0.0001), or pharmacologic (24.7% vs 3.9%, P < 0.0001) restraints in the ED. Predictors of EMS restraint use were male sex (odds ratio, 3.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-5.17) and being picked up from schools (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.81), whereas age group, race, and insurance type were not independent predictors.

Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 10 pediatric patients experiencing mental health crises and transported by EMS required restraint interventions in the field. Male patients, younger aged children, and those picked up from school represent a distinct and vulnerable population that could benefit from specialized prehospital care to manage agitation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿科精神和行为健康急症患者的院前约束使用。
研究目的本研究旨在描述由急救医疗服务(EMS)转运的精神和行为健康状况(MBH)儿童的特征,并根据急救医疗服务转运过程中的约束干预措施,研究患者、急诊科(ED)和急救医疗服务转运特征的差异:这是一项回顾性队列研究,研究对象是 9 年间被送往两家儿科急诊室的 5-18 岁精神疾病危机急救患者。人口统计学和急诊室数据通过电子方式收集;急救数据则通过人工方式从院前护理记录中提取。研究的现场干预措施包括急救中心临床医生采取的药物和机械约束措施。单变量分析比较了接受急救束缚和未接受急救束缚的患者之间的变量,多变量逻辑回归确定了与急救束缚使用独立相关的患者因素:在急救中心转运的 10,264 名 MBH 危机患者中,随机抽取了 1400 次,有 768 条记录可用。73名(9.5%)患者使用了急救束缚干预措施:5人(0.7%)只接受了药物约束,58人(7.6%)只接受了物理约束,10人(1.3%)同时接受了两种约束。接受急救束缚的患者更有可能是年轻人(35.6% 对 19.6%,P = 0.001)、男性(71.2% 对 44.6%,P < 0.0001),而且现场时间更长(13 分钟对 9 分钟)。从学校接回的患者更常使用束缚措施(30.1% 对 14.8%,P = 0.007)。在急诊室使用急救束缚的患者也更有可能接受物理束缚(12.3% vs 2.3%,P < 0.0001)、机械束缚(15.1% vs 1.0%,P < 0.0001)或药物束缚(24.7% vs 3.9%,P < 0.0001)。使用急救束缚措施的预测因素是男性(几率比,3.00;95% 置信区间,1.74-5.17)和被学校接走(几率比,2.08;95% 置信区间,1.13-3.81),而年龄组、种族和保险类型不是独立的预测因素:结论:每10名经历过心理健康危机并由急救中心转运的儿科患者中,就有近1人需要在现场采取约束性干预措施。男性患者、年龄较小的儿童和从学校接回的儿童是一个独特而脆弱的群体,他们可能会受益于专门的院前护理来控制躁动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric emergency care
Pediatric emergency care 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
577
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.
期刊最新文献
Development of a Scoring Model to Predict Severe Dengue in Children at Admission in the Emergency Care: An Observational Study. Minor Head Trauma in Children Younger Than 3 Months and Clinical Predictors of Clinically Important Traumatic Brain Injuries. Oral Ketamine and Midazolam for Procedural Sedation in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study. The National Emergency Department Overcrowding Scale and Perceived Staff Workload: Evidence for Construct Validity in a Pediatric Setting. Presence of Sonographic Secondary Signs Without Visualization of Appendix Is Indicative of Appendicitis in Children Younger Than 5 Years.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1