Nurses knowledge and attitudes regarding physical restraint in Turkish intensive care units


NURSING IN CRITICAL CARE, vol.26, no.4, pp.253-261, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 26 Issue: 4
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1111/nicc.12541
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.253-261
  • Keywords: alternatives, intensive care nursing, nursing care, physical restraint, EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION, DECISION-MAKING, SEDATION, DELIRIUM, PERCEPTIONS, GUIDELINES, INTENTION
  • Dokuz Eylül University Affiliated: Yes


Background Physical restraint is still widely used despite studies supporting a reduction in its use. The development of guidelines to reduce the use of PR first requires the identification of factors related to the use of alternative methods. Aim This study aimed to determine factors associated with the use of alternatives to physical restraint (PR) in intensive care units. Design This was a cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods Data were collected from adult intensive care units of three hospitals in Turkey using the Physical Restraint Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Scale and a questionnaire including open-ended questions. Results Overall, 202 nurses (80% response rate) completed the questionnaire. Nurses' knowledge, attitude, and practice scores regarding PR were 6.89 +/- 1.79, 29.85 +/- 4.93, and 36.76 +/- 3.36, respectively. PR was reported to be necessary for patients at risk of self-harm, with dangerous behaviours, and who were trying to remove their catheters. Most nurses (64.9%) stated that they needed a written doctor's order. Analysis of free-text responses showed that patient disorientation (because of delirium, sedation, or agitation), nurses' workload, and lack of training regarding restraint were the primary reasons why nurses could not use alternatives. The main alternatives suggested by nurses were categorized as sedation, communication, and environmental regulation. Logistic regression analysis identified training (P= .009), working unit (P= .001), and nurses' practice score to use PR (P= .004) as independent risk factors for not using alternative methods of PR. Conclusions The results of this study revealed a moderate level of knowledge, attitude, and practice among nurses regarding the use of PR. Thus, education of nurses about the prevention of delirium and alternatives to PR according to the characteristics of their units is required. Relevance to clinical practice Clinical guidelines and in-service training need to be developed to increase the use of alternatives to PR and delirium management.