The Impact of State Dementia Training Requirements for Nursing Homes on Resident Outcomes

Stakeholders, including policymakers, have prioritized the need to educate nursing home (NH) staff about Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Despite this prioritization and the relationship between staff training and outcomes, dementia-specific knowledge is variable. This study examined state-level training policies between 2011-2016. During this time 12 states (regulators and payers) implemented NH dementia training requirements, creating an opportunity for a natural experiment between states with and without new requirements. We estimated difference-in-differences models to determine the effect of state requirements on outcomes. Data from Nursing Home Compare and LTCFocus.org were linked to data on state policies. Training requirements were associated with 0.39 and 0.17 percentage point reductions in antipsychotics use and restraint use, respectively, and no impact on falls or need for help with daily activities. State requirements for dementia training in NHs are associated with a small, but significant reduction in the use of antipsychotic medication and physical restraints.

Physical restraint of dementia patients in acute care hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cohort analysis in Japan

Introduction The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented challenges for the medical staff worldwide, especially for those in hospitals where COVID-19-positive patients are hospitalized. The announcement of COVID-19 hospital restrictions by the Japanese government has led to several limitations in hospital care, including an increased use of physical restraints, which could affect the care of elderly dementia patients. However, few studies have empirically validated the impact of physical restraint use during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the impact of regulatory changes, consequent to the pandemic, on physical restraint use among elderly dementia patients in acute care hospitals. Methods In this retrospective study, we extracted the data of elderly patients (aged > 64 years) who received dementia care in acute care hospitals between January 6, 2019, and July 4, 2020. We divided patients into two groups depending on whether they were admitted to hospitals that received COVID-19-positive patients. We calculated descriptive statistics to compare the trend in 2-week intervals and conducted an interrupted time-series analysis to validate the changes in the use of physical restraint. Results In hospitals that received COVID-19-positive patients, the number of patients who were physically restrained per 1,000 hospital admissions increased after the government’s announcement, with a maximum incidence of 501.4 per 1,000 hospital admissions between the 73rd and 74th week after the announcement. Additionally, a significant increase in the use of physical restraints for elderly dementia patients was noted (p = 0.004) in hospitals that received COVID-19-positive patients. Elderly dementia patients who required personal care experienced a significant increase in the use of physical restraints during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Understanding the causes and mechanisms underlying an increased use of physical restraints for dementia patients can help design more effective care protocols for similar future situations.

Variation of the Occurrence of Physical Restraint Use in the Long-Term Care: A Scoping Review

Physical restraints in the long-term care setting are still commonly used in several countries with a prevalence ranging from 6% to 85%. Trying to have a broad and extensive overlook on the physical restraints use in long-term care is important to design interventions to prevent and/or reduce their use. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to analyze the range of occurrence of physical restraint in nursing homes, long-term care facilities, and psychogeriatric units. Pubmed, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO- databases were searched for studies with concepts about physical restraint use in the European long-term care setting published between 2009 and 2019, along with a hand search of the bibliographies of the included studies. Data on study design, data sources, clinical setting and sample characteristics were extracted. A total of 24 studies were included. The median occurrence of physical restraint in the European long-term care setting was still high (26.5%; IQR 16.5% to 38.5%) with a significant variability across the studies. The heterogeneity of data varied according to study design, data sources, clinical setting, physical restraint’s definition, and patient characteristics, such as ADLs dependence, presence of dementia and psychoactive drugs prescription.

Physical Restraint Use in Intensive Care Units: Exploring the Decision-Making Process and New Proposals. A Multimethod Study

Aim: The general aim of this study was to explore the decision-making process followed by Intensive Care Unit (ICU) health professionals with respect to physical restraint (PR) administration and management, along with the factors that influence it. Method: A qual-quant multimethod design was sequenced in two stages: an initial stage following a qualitative methodology; and second, quantitative with a predominant descriptive approach. The multicenter study was undertaken at 17 ICUs belonging to 11 public hospitals in the Madrid region (Spain) across the period 2015 through 2019. The qualitative stage was performed from an interpretative phenomenological perspective. A total of eight discussion groups (DG) were held, with the participation of 23 nurses, 12 patient care nursing assistants, and seven physicians. Intentional purposive sampling was carried out. DG were tape-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis of the latent content was performed. In the quantitative stage, we maintained a 96-h observation period at each ICU. Variables pertaining to general descriptive elements of each ICU, institutional pain-agitation/sedation-delirium (PAD) monitoring policies and elements linked to quality of PR use were recorded. A descriptive analysis was performed, and the relationship between the variables was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Findings: A total of 1070 patients were observed, amounting to a median prevalence of PR use of 19.11% (min: 0%–max: 44.44%). The differences observed between ICUs could be explained by a difference in restraint conceptualization. The various actors involved jointly build up a health care culture and a conceptualization of the terms “safety-risk”, which determine decision-making about the use of restraints at each ICU. These shared meanings are the germ of beliefs, values, and rituals which, in this case, determine the greater or lesser use of restraints. There were different profiles of PR use among the units studied: preventive restraints versus “Zero” restraints. The differences corresponded to aspects such as: systematic use of tools for assessment of PAD; interpretation of patient behavior; the decision-making process, the significance attributed to patient safety and restraints; and the feelings generated by PR use. The restraint–free model requires an approach to safety from a holistic perspective, with the involvement of all team members and the family.