|
See also: Medical, Legal Nurse Consultants, Clinical Nursing Case of the Week, Clinical Charting and Documentation, Nurses Notes, Courtrooms, Disability, Discrimination, Employment, Expert Witnesses, Informed Consent, Medical Malpractice, Nursing Practice Acts, Pensions, Search Engines, Torts and Personal Injury, Unemployment, Workers Compensation, Workplace Safety:
Each week a case will be reviewed and supplemented with clinical and legal resources from the web. Attorneys, Legal Nurse Consultants and nursing professionals are welcome to submit relevant articles. Please contact us if you'd like to reproduce our material.
For a free subscription to our publication:
Please send a blank e-mail to: clinicalnursingcases-subscribe@topica.com
Summary: The decision to use or not use restraints
must be made with caution and good judgement. Their intended purpose must
be to protect either the patient or others who may be injured by the patient
including the staff caring for the client. The ultimate determination of
necessity is left with the physician. Often, the moment to moment necessity
is determined by the nurse. In this case a nurse did not feel restraining
the patient was necessary. When an injury occurred, the patient sued.
The patient was involved in a motor vehicle accident. A head
injury was suffered leaving him in a state of confusion and prone to
agitation.
"Each year, an estimated 2 million people sustain a head
injury. About 500,000 to 750,000 head injuries each year are severe
enough to require hospitalization. Head injury is most common among males
between the ages of 15-24, but can strike, unexpectedly, at any age. Many
head injuries are mild, and symptoms usually disappear over time with proper
attention. Others are more severe and may result in permanent disability."
2
Following the head
injury, the patient was visibly confused and frequently became agitated.
During the course of his admission, an order for "soft" wrist
restraints
was obtained and implemented to protect the patient from injury related
to mental status (personality) changes.
"Personality Changes-Apathy and decreased motivation. Emotional
lability, irritability, depression. Disinhibition which may result in temper
flare-ups, aggression, cursing, lowered frustration tolerance, and inappropriate
sexual behavior."2
On the day of the incident, the nurse
on duty had assessed the patient. In her professional opinion restraints
were not needed.
"What Is Restraint?
"Restraint" is physical force, mechanical devices, chemicals,
seclusion, or any other means which unreasonably limit freedom of movement.
hospital staff may use four types of restraint to restrict patients who
are acting, or threatening to act, in a violent way towards themselves
or others.
Physical restraint--holding a patient for over five minutes in order
to prevent freedom of movement.
Mechanical restraint--using a device, such as 4-point or full sheet
restraint, to restrict a patient's movement (excludes devices prescribed
for medical purposes).
Chemical restraint--medicating a patient against her will for the purpose
of restraint rather than treatment.
Seclusion--placing a patient alone in a room so that she cannot see
or speak with patients or staff and the patient cannot leave or believes
she cannot leave."3
She based this decision on her observation of the patient's mental,
physical state and level of consciousness. It is common procedure and protocol
in facilities for patient's to be released from restraints
when the danger of violence is felt to have passed.
"How Long May Restraint Continue?
When an emergency no longer exists, the patient should be released.
Thus, staff should release a patient who, upon examination, appears calm.
The total time which a patient may be restrained is limited:"3
Later in the shift, the same nurse
was helping the patient get up. In the course of this maneuver, the patient
fell and claimed that an injury was sustained.
A lawsuit would be filed against the facility alleging negligence on
the part of the nurse.
The patient contended that the removal of the restraints breached standards
of care.
In the initial trial, the jury was instructed to view the nurse's
role as an "error in judgement." Based on this and on testimony
on the proper use of restraints, standards of care, the court found for
the facility.
The patient appealed.
Questions to be answered:
1. Was the nurse in error to remove the restraints
from a patient when she felt they were no longer needed.
2. Did the removal of the restraints
directly contribute to the "injury" that the patient claimed
to sustain?
3. Were the standards of care governing restraint
use adequately maintained?
The plaintiff's arguments sought to convince the jury that poor judgement
was exercised by the nurse. It was contended that removal of the restraints
and ambulation of the patient put him in harm's way.
With the patient assessed to be calm, the purpose of the restraints,
"to prevent the patient from harming himself or others," had
been achieved.
The purpose of the restraints
had not been to "keep the patient from falling out of bed." The
removal of the restraints then, could not be deemed as negligent. There
was no duty of care breached in allowing the calm patient to remain unrestrained.
The order was in place to ambulate the patient when stable. In the nurse's
opinion, the patient was ready. Another nurse may not have agreed with
her actions. The patient under a different nurse's care might have been
kept in restraints.
A nurse could have "held off" on the order to ambulate.
There was no causative relationship between removing the restraints
and the patient's fall. In carrying out orders for ambulation, the nurse
was providing proper nursing care.
It's not difficult to picture a lone nurse with an unsteady patient
losing control and having the patient slip away. Would this be a breach
of duty owed to the patient?
One could argue that the nurse had no business trying to move a patient
by herself. One might also observe the staffing patterns at the time and
realize the nurse
was doing "the best she could."
The decision to remove the restraints
was clearly a nursing decision. Often the decision to use them in the first
place lies with the nurse
too.
This illustrates the leeway and discretion given nurses
when carrying out physician's orders. It also shows the typical catch 22
situation some nurses may find themselves in regarding restraint
use.
"Historically, conventional wisdom supported using physical restraints,
including bed side rails, to "protect and safeguard" residents.
Ironically, little documented evidence exists that restraints prevent falls
and risk of injury from falls. Clinical studies demonstrate that restraints,
conversely, in some instances, precipitate or exacerbate fall risk."4
Both nurses
in the above situation would be acting within their scope of practice.
Each would be adhering to standards of care.
For the plaintiff to have a case, it would need to proven that either
the removal of the restraints
or the ambulation of the patient was premature.
This was clearly not the case. The actions of the nurse
were in good faith and exercised reasonable concern for the well being
of the patient. The fact that the patient suffered a fall is unfortunate,
and reasonably unforseeable.
It can be compared to the actions of a physician when dealing with an
acute patient. Depending on which course of treatment that physician chooses,
the patient might or might not have a favorable outcome.
In either case, as long as the physician exercises reasonable judgement
based on established principles of practice, a finding of negligence is
unlikely.
It has been well established that Medicine is not an exact science.
Outcomes are not guaranteed when prescribing courses of treatment.
They are the result of standard medical practices and individual patient
responses. These responses are not always predictable. Basically, the caregiver
can only hope for the best.
The same principle applies to Nursing
care. Regardless of how accurate assessments are and how diligently
orders are carried out, patients may or may not experience favorable outcomes.
When outcomes are unfavorable, it is the constitutional right of the
patient or patient's estate to sue anyone felt to be involved.
The court reviewed the facts of the case and a nursing
expert's testimony on restraint
use. The appeals court agreed that standards of care had been maintained.
There exists today intense pressure from family members, governmental
agencies and regulatory agencies to limit restraint
use to "only when absolutely necessary." As soon as they are
put in use, the plan of care must include provisions for their removal.
Link Sections:
Head
Injuries:
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directpatientcare/head.injuries.htm
Ethics:
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directpatientcare/ethics.htm
Mechanical
& Physical Restraints:
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/directpatientcare/mechanical.physical.restraints.htm
Medical Legal Consulting
Nurse Entrepreneurs
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/ymedlegal.htm
Sources:
1. RRNL 2 (July 1997)
2. Family Caregivers Alliance Clearinghouse. Revised November 1996.
Fact Sheet:
Head Injury. Retrieved May 30, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.caregiver.org/factsheets/head_injury.html
3. Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee. No date given. Your
Rights in Hospitals Regarding Restraining and Seclusion. Retrieved
May 30, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www.psychiatry.com/mhlac/basicrights/restraintandseclusion.html
4. Braun, Julie A. & Quish, Clare J. 11/10/98. Illinois Institute
for Continuing Legal Education. Physical
Restraints And Fall-Related Injuries. Retrieved May 30, 1999 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.iicle.com/articles/braun11_10_98b.html
The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or Internet Street Address
of this page is
http://www.nursefriendly.com/nursing/clinical.cases/053099.htm
Send comments and mail to Andrew Lopez, RN
Created on Saturday May 23, 1999
Last updated by Andrew
Lopez, RN on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 |