Background Increasing evidence indicates that harmful effects are associated with the use of physical restraint. Objectives To characterize the use of physical restraint in intensive care units. Prevalence, adherence to protocols, and correlates of the use of physical restraint were determined. For comparisons between ICUs, adjustments were made for differences in patients' characteristics. Methods A prospective, cross-sectional, observational multicenter study with a representative sample (n = 25) of all Dutch intensive care units, ranging from local hospitals to academic centers. Each unit was visited twice, and all 379 patients admitted during these visits were included and were examined for use of physical restraint. Results Physical restraint was used in 23% of all patients (range, 0%-56% for different units). Of all 346 nurses interviewed, 31% reported using a protocol when applying physical restraint. When corrections were made for clustering within units, the risk for use of physical restraint was increased in patients with delirium or coma, in patients who could not communicate verbally, and in patients receiving psychoactive or sedative medications. Sex, severity of illness, and nurse to patient ratio were not independently related to use of physical restraint. In 11 units (44%), use of physical restraint was more frequent than expected on the basis of patients' characteristics, although this finding was not significant. Conclusions Physical restraint is frequently used in Dutch intensive care units. The differences in frequency between units suggest that opportunities exist to limit the use of physical restraint.

IntroductionDelirium is an acute disturbance of consciousness and cognition. It is a common disorder in the intensive care unit (ICU) and associated with impaired long-term outcome. Despite its frequency and impact, delirium is poorly recognized by ICU-physicians and –nurses using delirium screening tools. A completely new approach to detect delirium is to use monitoring of physiological alterations. Temperature variability, a measure for temperature regulation, could be an interesting component to monitor delirium, but whether temperature regulation is different during ICU delirium has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ICU delirium is related to temperature variability. Furthermore, we investigated whether ICU delirium is related to absolute body temperature.MethodsWe included patients who experienced both delirium and delirium free days during ICU stay, based on the Confusion Assessment method for the ICU conducted by a research- physician or –nurse, in combination with inspection of medical records. We excluded patients with conditions affecting thermal regulation or therapies affecting body temperature. Daily temperature variability was determined by computing the mean absolute second derivative of the temperature signal. Temperature variability (primary outcome) and absolute body temperature (secondary outcome) were compared between delirium- and non-delirium days with a linear mixed model and adjusted for daily mean Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale scores and daily maximum Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores.ResultsTemperature variability was increased during delirium-days compared to days without delirium (βunadjusted=0.007, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.004 to 0.011, p<0.001). Adjustment for confounders did not alter this result (βadjusted=0.005, 95% CI=0.002 to 0.008, p<0.001). Delirium was not associated with absolute body temperature (βunadjusted=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.17 to 0.10, p=0.61). This did not change after adjusting for confounders (βadjusted=-0.03, 95% CI=-0.17 to 0.10, p=0.63).ConclusionsOur study suggests that temperature variability is increased during ICU delirium.