The Journal of emergency medicine · 2023
Characteristics of Patients Restrained in the Emergency Department and Evaluation for Disparities in Care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stillman Kaytlena, Mirocha James, Geiderman Joel, Torbati Sam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Physical restraints are used in the emergency department (ED) for agitated patients to prevent self-harm and protect staff. Prior studies identified associations between sociodemographic factors and ED physical restraints use.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare characteristics of ED patients receiving physical restraints for violent and nonviolent indications vs. patients who were not restrained. The secondary objective was to compare rates of restraint use among ED providers.
METHODS: This was a single-center cross-sectional study of adult ED patients from March 2019 to February 2021. Factors compared across groups were age over 50 years, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance, housing, primary language, Emergency Severity Index, time of arrival, mode of arrival, chief complaint, and medical admission. Odds ratios were reported. Rates of emergency physician restraint orders were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Restraints were used in 1228 (0.9%) visits. Younger age, male gender, "Нет данных" ethnicity, self-pay or "other" nonprivate insurance, homelessness, arrival by first responders, and medical hospitalization were associated with increased odds of restraint. Black patients had lower odds of any restraint than White patients (odds ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.09) and higher odds of violent restraint than White patients, although not significant (odds ratio 1.55; 95% confidence interval 0.95-2.54). ED providers had significant differences in total and violent restraint use (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0003, respectively).
CONCLUSION: At this institution, certain sociodemographic characteristics were associated with receiving both types of physical restraint. Emergency physicians also differed in restraint-ordering practice. Further investigation is needed to understand the influence of implicit bias on ED restraint use.
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare characteristics of ED patients receiving physical restraints for violent and nonviolent indications vs. patients who were not restrained. The secondary objective was to compare rates of restraint use among ED providers.
METHODS: This was a single-center cross-sectional study of adult ED patients from March 2019 to February 2021. Factors compared across groups were age over 50 years, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance, housing, primary language, Emergency Severity Index, time of arrival, mode of arrival, chief complaint, and medical admission. Odds ratios were reported. Rates of emergency physician restraint orders were compared using the chi-square test.
RESULTS: Restraints were used in 1228 (0.9%) visits. Younger age, male gender, "Нет данных" ethnicity, self-pay or "other" nonprivate insurance, homelessness, arrival by first responders, and medical hospitalization were associated with increased odds of restraint. Black patients had lower odds of any restraint than White patients (odds ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.09) and higher odds of violent restraint than White patients, although not significant (odds ratio 1.55; 95% confidence interval 0.95-2.54). ED providers had significant differences in total and violent restraint use (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0003, respectively).
CONCLUSION: At this institution, certain sociodemographic characteristics were associated with receiving both types of physical restraint. Emergency physicians also differed in restraint-ordering practice. Further investigation is needed to understand the influence of implicit bias on ED restraint use.