MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200533548 · doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103153

Implementation of nonpharmacologic physical restraint minimization interventions in the adult intensive care unit: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W4200533548 on OpenAlexafffund
Ziad Alostaz, Louise Rose, Sangeeta Mehta, Linda J. Johnston, Craig Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive and Critical Care Nursing · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai HospitalSt. Lawrence CollegeUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineContext (archaeology)MEDLINEIntervention (counseling)DocumentationInclusion (mineral)Health careNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify the elements informing the successful implementation of nonpharmacologic physical restraint minimization interventions in adult intensive care unit patients. To map those elements to innovation, context, recipients and facilitation domains of the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework and to describe the outcomes of those interventions. METHODOLOGY: A scoping review of studies published in English reporting on restraint minimization interventions in adult intensive care units. We searched seven databases (MEDLINE, CIHAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO and Joanna Briggs) from inception to 2021. Two authors independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and mapped intervention data to the i-PARIHS domains. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Innovations comprised multicomponent interventions including education, decision aids/protocols and restraint alternatives. No studies utilised an implementation science framework to diagnose the baseline practice context. A commonly reported barrier to restraint minimization was a risk averse culture. Change was mostly driven by the external context (i.e. national regulations). Overall, nurses were the primary facilitators and recipients of practice change. Outcomes were changes in restraint incidence and prevalence abstracted from the medical record. However, no study validated the accuracy of restraint documentation. All studies documented an initial decrease in physical restraint use, but no long-term results were reported. CONCLUSION: Restraint minimization intervention studies report nurse-facilitated multicomponent interventions and short-term practice change. Future restraint minimization research incorporating implementation science frameworks, interprofessional teams and patient/family perspectives is warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.252
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive and Critical Care NursingSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207