Abstract:Background: Physical restraints (PR), such as bedrails and belts in chairs or beds, are commonly used for older people receiving long-term care, despite clear evidence for the lack of effectiveness and safety, and widespread recommendations that their use should be avoided. This systematic review of the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraints outside hospital settings, i.e. in care homes and the community, updates our previous review published in 2011. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of interventions to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraints for older people who require long-term care (either at home or in residential care facilities) SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid Sp), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register, the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, on 3 August 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that investigated the effects of interventions intended to prevent or reduce the use of physical restraints in older people who require long-term care. Studies conducted in residential care institutions or in the community, including patients' homes, were eligible for inclusion. We assigned all included interventions to categories based on their mechanisms and components. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected the publications for inclusion, extracted study data, and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. Primary outcomes were the number or proportion of people with at least one physical restraint, and serious adverse events related to PR use, such as death or serious injuries. We performed meta-analyses if necessary data were available. If meta-analyses were not feasible, we reported results narratively. We used GRADE methods to describe the certainty of the evidence. Main results: We identified six new studies and included 11 studies with 19,003 participants in this review update. All studies were conducted in long-term residential care facilities. Ten studies were RCTs and one study a CCT. All studies included people with dementia. The mean age of the participants was approximately 85 years. Four studies investigated organisational interventions aiming to implement a least-restraint policy; six studies investigated simple educational interventions; and one study tested an intervention that provided staff with information about residents' fall risk. The control groups received usual care only in most studies although, in two studies, additional information materials about physical restraint reduction were provided. We judged the risk of selection bias to be high or unclear in eight studies. Risk of reporting bias was high in one study and unclear in eight studies. The organisational interventions intended to promote a least-restraint policy included a variety of components, such as education of staff, training of 'champions' of low-restraint practice, and components which aimed to facilitate a change in institutional policies and culture of care. We found moderate-certainty evidence that organisational interventions aimed at implementation of a least-restraint policy probably lead to a reduction in the number of residents with at least one use of PR (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; 3849 participants, 4 studies) and a large reduction in the number of residents with at least one use of a belt for restraint (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.73; 2711 participants, 3 studies). No adverse events occurred in the one study which reported this outcome. There was evidence from one study that organisational interventions probably reduce the duration of physical restraint use. We found that the interventions may have little or no effect on the number of falls or fall-related injuries (low-certainty evidence) and probably have little or no effect on the number of prescribed psychotropic medications (moderate-certainty evidence). One study found that organisational interventions result in little or no difference in quality of life (high-certainty evidence) and another study found that they may make little or no difference to agitation (low-certainty evidence). The simple educational interventions were intended to increase knowledge and change staff attitudes towards PR. As well as providing education, some interventions included further components to support change, such as ward-based guidance. We found pronounced between-group baseline imbalances in PR prevalence in some of the studies, which might have occurred because of the small number of clusters in the intervention and control groups. One study did not assess bedrails, which is the most commonly used method of restraint in nursing homes. Regarding the number of residents with at least one restraint, the results were inconsistent. We found very-low certainty evidence and we are uncertain about the effects of simple educational interventions on the number of residents with PR. None of the studies assessed or reported any serious adverse events. We found moderate-certainty evidence that simple educational interventions probably result in little or no difference in restraint intensity and may have little or no effect on falls, fall-related injuries, or agitation (low-certainty evidence each). Based on very low-certainty evidence we are uncertain about the effects of simple educational interventions on the number of participants with a prescription of at least one psychotropic medication. One study investigated an intervention that provided information about residents' fall risk to the nursing staff. We found low-certainty evidence that providing information about residents' fall risk may result in little or no difference in the mean number of PR or the number of falls. The study did not assess overall adverse events. Authors' conclusions: Organisational interventions aimed to implement a least-restraint policy probably reduce the number of residents with at least one PR and probably largely reduce the number of residents with at least one belt. We are uncertain whether simple educational interventions reduce the use of physical restraints, and interventions providing information about residents' fall risk may result in little to no difference in the use of physical restraints. These results apply to long-term care institutions; we found no studies from community settings.

Novel Approaches Needed: An Experimental Study with an Alternative to Mechanical Restraint

The Effect of Non-Pharmacological Interventions on Physical Restraint Reduction in Intensive Care Units: a Protocol for an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.

Development and Implementation of a Novel Decision Support Tool on Physical Restraint Use in Critically Ill Adult Patients

“Patient Comfort Can Be Sacrificed for Patient Safety”—Perception and Practice Reported by Critical Care Nurses Toward Physical Restraints: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

Values and Preferences of Health Care Professionals, Policy-Makers, Patients and Family Members Regarding Recommendations of Adapted Physical Restraint Guidelines in Critical Care: A Survey Research

Review article: Scoping review of interventions that reduce mechanical restraint in the emergency department

Family perspectives on physical restraint practices and minimization in an adult intensive care unit: A qualitative descriptive study

The Attitudes Towards the Use of Restraint and Restrictive Intervention Amongst Healthcare Staff on Acute Medical and Frailty Wards—A Brief Literature Review

Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Minimizing Physical Restraints Use in Intensive Care Units: An Umbrella Review

Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints of older people in general hospital settings.

The restraint chair: A qualitative study of the patient experience

[Restraint in intensive care: between patient safety and respect for autonomy]

An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Experience of the Therapeutic Relationship between Service Users and Staff after Physical Restraint in a Secure Mental Health Service

Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints for older people in all long-term care settings

Understanding nurses' perspectives of physical restraints during mechanical ventilation in intensive care: A qualitative study

Phase I pilot safety and feasibility of a novel restraint device for critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation

Seclusion versus mechanical restraint in psychiatry - a systematic review

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

The Use of Physical Restraints on Geriatric Patients: Culture and Attitudes among Healthcare Professionals at Intermediate Care Hospitals in Majorca. A Qualitative Study Protocol

Effects of Implementing the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability for Mechanical Restraint in a Forensic Male Population: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster-Randomized Design

Perspectives on physical restraint in psychiatric hospital: A qualitative study of mentally ill patients