Cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals’ perceptions of bedrails as a measure of physical restraint in the hospital setting

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Age and ageing Pub Date : 2025-01-24 DOI:10.1093/ageing/afaf002
César Gálvez-Barrón, Ana González-De Luna, Carlos Pérez-López, Oscar Macho-Perez
{"title":"Cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals’ perceptions of bedrails as a measure of physical restraint in the hospital setting","authors":"César Gálvez-Barrón, Ana González-De Luna, Carlos Pérez-López, Oscar Macho-Perez","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afaf002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Although bedrails are considered a restraint measure under the legal regulations in Spain, no data on the related perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are available. Thus, this study aimed to calculate the proportion of HCPs in the hospital setting that consider bedrails to be a restraint measure. Methods Between June and December 2022, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted among the HCPs at our institution. Basal information was collected in the first section, and seven questions related to bedrails were included in the second. The perception of bedrails as a restraint measure was evaluated with a multiple-choice question in which devices that can be considered restraint measures were listed. Results A total of 246 HCPs participated in the survey, 201 of whom passed quality control and were analysed. The mean age was 42.2 years old, and 85% of the participants were women. The proportion of HCPs who considered bedrails as a restraint measure was 54.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.3–61.1) in the total group and 54.5% (95% CI: 44.1–65.0) in the intermediate care subgroup. These proportions were significantly lower for HCPs who worked night shifts and among those who believed that bedrails do not limit patient mobility. Conclusions There is a considerable difference between what is established in legal regulations and the perceptions of HCPs in terms of bedrails being considered a restraint measure. Our results can help improve the content of training programs on the use of restraint measures by HCPs.","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Although bedrails are considered a restraint measure under the legal regulations in Spain, no data on the related perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are available. Thus, this study aimed to calculate the proportion of HCPs in the hospital setting that consider bedrails to be a restraint measure. Methods Between June and December 2022, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted among the HCPs at our institution. Basal information was collected in the first section, and seven questions related to bedrails were included in the second. The perception of bedrails as a restraint measure was evaluated with a multiple-choice question in which devices that can be considered restraint measures were listed. Results A total of 246 HCPs participated in the survey, 201 of whom passed quality control and were analysed. The mean age was 42.2 years old, and 85% of the participants were women. The proportion of HCPs who considered bedrails as a restraint measure was 54.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.3–61.1) in the total group and 54.5% (95% CI: 44.1–65.0) in the intermediate care subgroup. These proportions were significantly lower for HCPs who worked night shifts and among those who believed that bedrails do not limit patient mobility. Conclusions There is a considerable difference between what is established in legal regulations and the perceptions of HCPs in terms of bedrails being considered a restraint measure. Our results can help improve the content of training programs on the use of restraint measures by HCPs.
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
医疗保健专业人员对床栏的看法的横断面调查,作为医院环境中身体约束的一种措施
尽管根据西班牙的法律规定,床栏被视为一种限制措施,但没有关于卫生保健专业人员(HCPs)相关看法的数据。因此,本研究旨在计算医院环境中认为床栏是一种约束措施的HCPs的比例。方法于2022年6月至12月,对我院HCPs进行横断面在线调查。第一部分收集基础信息,第二部分包括与床轨相关的七个问题。对床栏作为约束措施的看法通过多项选择题进行评估,其中列出了可被视为约束措施的设备。结果共有246家HCPs参与调查,其中201家通过质控并进行分析。平均年龄为42.2岁,85%的参与者是女性。将床栏作为约束措施的HCPs比例在总组为54.2%(95%可信区间[CI]: 44.3 - 61.1),在中间护理亚组为54.5% (95% CI: 44.1-65.0)。这些比例在夜班工作的医护人员和那些认为床栏不会限制患者活动的医护人员中明显较低。结论:在将床栏视为一种约束措施方面,法律法规的规定与卫生保健提供者的看法存在相当大的差异。我们的研究结果有助于提高医护人员使用约束措施的培训内容。
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
Age and ageing
Age and ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
6.00%
发文量
796
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Age and Ageing is an international journal publishing refereed original articles and commissioned reviews on geriatric medicine and gerontology. Its range includes research on ageing and clinical, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of later life.
期刊最新文献
Trajectories of frailty, grip strength and gait speed preceding dementia: a nested case-control study. Antidepressants and risk of pneumonia in older adults: a nationwide self-controlled case series. Permanent cognitive or physical impairment after transfer from long-term care to acute care: a retrospective cohort study. Embedding effective dementia education into undergraduate medical curricula-a realist review. Effectiveness of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions on delirium duration in older adults with delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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