No abstract

Introduction This is a law review of restraint use in critical care settings within the United Kingdom with a specific context to England and Wales following the introduction of new statues and case law developments. The principles discussed could be similarly applied internationally, as the aim of health care is the preservation of life. Care delivery often proves difficult without the use of restraint considering the adversities delirium may present with as a common occurrence. Staff have to be aware of their role, duty, and limitations in legal terms and respond to challenging behavior appropriately and proportionately within the law. Methods As a law review, it follows arguments and principles around a topic by analyzing case law and statutory instruments specifically applicable to restraint use within critical care. Conclusion Restraint use in critical care settings in England and Wales is justifiable prior to formal authorization regardless the patient has or lacks capacity at the time as long as the restraint use is to maintain life-sustaining treatment or where an action could result in potential deterioration in the condition of the patient. However, there is a need to distinguish between on-going and life-sustaining care provisions. Restraint use in any case has to be in order to protect the patient from harm, enacted in the best interest of the patient, and has to be proportionate with the perceived likelihood of severity of likely harm occurring. Unless the delirium lasts or likely to last for over 28 days, no formal application is required should the need arise. Staff are empowered by statutory and case law measures to act with the use of appropriate restraint to protect their patients and those in close vicinity from harm. Regardless of national jurisdictions, the aim of critical care is to preserve life; hence, the findings within could be applicable internationally.

Facial hair inhibits the functionality of certain respiratory protective equipment, yet employers have a duty of care to provide protection for their employees against communicable respiratory diseases such as COVID-19. Could individuals be forced to remove their facial hair? How can staff with facial hair be protected from COVID-19? These issues present legal and ethical dilemmas for employers and employees alike regarding the provision and use of respiratory and personal protective equipment under health and safety considerations. This is a law review examining various UK statutory instruments and case law surrounding the use of facial hair and the use of respiratory protection. Facial hair is a hazard when considering respiratory protective equipment provision and use. Unless there is an absolute need requiring the removal of facial hair for any reason, individuals have the right to grow facial hair as they see fit. It is arguable though what an “absolute need” may be, as numerous proportional and reasonable adjustments can be made to accommodate facial hair that can mitigate the risks associated with respiratory diseases.

No abstract