Barnett, RJ, Green, M, Price, W and Stirling, C (2019) An Investigation into the Physiological and Psychological Impact of Supine and Side Lying Physical Restraint Techniques. Journal of Emergency Medicine and Care.

[img]
Preview
Text
An Investigation into the Physiological and Psychological Impact of Supine and Side Lying Physical Restraint Techniques_Barnett et al 2019.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (511kB) | Preview

Abstract

This research investigated the physiological and psychological impact of supine and side lying physical restraint (PR) positions which have been suggested as safer alternatives to prone restraint positions. Twenty adults participated. From baseline Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) reduced by 10.4%, 10.4% and 14.6%, and FEV1 reduced by 7%, 7%, and 12% for supine arms low (SPR-AL), supine arms high (SPR-AH), and Side Lying restraint (SLR) respectively. SLR imposed the greatest Thoracic Weight bearing Pressure (TWP) at 116.1 (±17.5) mmHg, which was ~17% more than SPR-AH, and ~23% more than SPR-AL. HR was unaffected. Comfort was perceived to be greatest for SPR-AL, with SPR-AH being 6.7% less comfortable and SLR being 45% less comfortable. Anxiety was greatest in SLR, with SPR-HL and SPR-AL being 36.5% and 48.1% less anxiety inducing respectively. Breathing limitation was greatest in SLR, with SPR-AH and SPR-AL being 44.4% and 46.3% less limiting respectively. Compared to baseline all three restraint positions reduced respiratory measures (p = 0.001), with SPR-AL and SPR-AH being similar but differing from SLR (p = 0.001), and resulted in perceptions of discomfort, anxiety, and breathing limitation, with SLR being the most negatively impactful position tested. These findings are in keeping with our previous research which showed variance in the physiological and psychological impact of different restraint positions. All restraint positions possess the ability to negatively impact an individual both physiologically and psychologically but that impact is not homogenous, with some positions clearly possessing a lower level of risk than others.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Annex Publishers at http://www.annexpublishers.com/journals/journal-of-emergency-medicine-and-care/articles-in-press.php - please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > School of Allied Health Professions
Depositing User: Symplectic
Date Deposited: 14 Oct 2019 15:54
Last Modified: 14 Oct 2019 15:58
URI: https://eprints.keele.ac.uk/id/eprint/7031

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item