Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34769543›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Restraint Use in Aged Care.

Juanita Breen, Barbara C Wimmer, Chloé C H Smit, Helen Courtney-Pratt, Katherine Lawler, Katharine Salmon, Andrea Price, Lynette R Goldberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Exploring the Safewards Programme to Reduce Restrictive Practices in Residential Aged Care: Protocol for a Pilot and Feasibility Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Juanita BreenWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9932-9513
Barbara C WimmerSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.
Chloé C H SmitWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3037-5837
Helen Courtney-PrattWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.
Katherine LawlerWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1484-1113
Katharine SalmonWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.
Andrea PriceWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.
Lynette R GoldbergWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8217-317X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restraint use in Australian residential aged care has been highlighted by the media, and investigated by researchers, government and advocacy bodies. In 2018, the Royal Commission into Aged Care selected 'Restraint' as a key focus of inquiry. Subsequently, Federal legislation was passed to ensure restraint is only used in residential aged care services as the 'last resort'. To inform and develop Government educational resources, we conducted qualitative research to gain greater understanding of the experiences and attitudes of aged care stakeholders around restraint practice. Semi-structured interviews were held with 28 participants, comprising nurses, care staff, physicians, physiotherapists, pharmacists and relatives. Two focus groups were also conducted to ascertain the views of residential and community aged care senior management staff. Data were thematically analyzed using a pragmatic approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Five themes were identified during the study: 1. Understanding of restraint; 2. Support for legislation; 3. Restraint-free environments are not possible; 4. Low-level restraint; 5. Restraint in the community is uncharted. Although most staff, health practitioners and relatives have a basic understanding of restraint, more education is needed at a conceptual level to enable them to identify and avoid restraint practice, particularly 'low-level' forms and chemical restraint. There was strong support for the new restraint regulations, but most interviewees admitted they were unsure what the legislation entailed. With regards to resources, stakeholders wanted recognition that there were times when restraint was necessary and advice on what to do in these situations, as opposed to unrealistic aspirations for restraint-free care. Stakeholders reported greater oversight of restraint in residential aged care but specified that community restraint use was largely unknown. Research is needed to investigate the extent and types of restraint practice in community aged care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareRestraint, PhysicalAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaFocus GroupsHumansQualitative Researchchemical restraintcommunity aged careday carehome carelong term aged carenursing homephysical restraintpsychotropicresidential aged carerestraintrestrictive practice

Identifiers

PMID34769543
PMCPMC8582776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.