Prevalence of chemical restraint use in hospital care. A consensus and cross-sectional study
Clicks: 1
ID: 314925
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #104 of 106 articles by views in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restrictive practices are interventions that limit the rights or freedom of movement of a care recipient. Using medicines to manage behaviours that pose a threat to the patient or others is referred to as chemical restraint. Guidance in Australia for monitoring chemical restraint has largely focused on the aged care and disability sectors. In contrast, far less is known about chemical restraint use in the hospital inpatient setting. This study aims to reach a health service wide consensus on a chemical restraint definition and a list of medicines used for inpatient care. It also aims to determine the prevalence of chemical restraint use across a large health network. METHODS: A modified-Delphi consensus and cross-sectional period prevalence study was undertaken across a large health service in Australia. A multidisciplinary clinical reference group participated in three survey rounds to determine a definition and list of medicines. Period prevalence (%) was determined using inpatient medical notes and differences between clinical speciality prescription and administration were determined by odds ratio (P < .05). RESULTS: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare definition was adopted and any prescription of an antipsychotic, sedative/hypnotic, ketamine or propofol was assessed. There were 16.73% (95% CI 14.4% to 19.1%) of patients prescribed and 10.03% (95% CI 7.97% to 12.09%) administered a medicine for chemical restraint. Chemical restraint was prevalent across a range of clinical specialties with mental health patients 17 times more likely to be exposed ([OR] 17.18, 95% CI 8.74-33.77, P < .001)). Olanzapine was the most commonly prescribed medicine (69, 29.11%) with 79.75% (189) of all medicines prescribed pro re nata. Consent was documented for four (5.63%) patients. CONCLUSION: Chemical restraint is prescribed across a range of hospital clinical specialties with low rates of documented consent. Adopting a standardised approach could improve existing hospital safety and quality policy and practices.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7162294369
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Jodie Hillen, Martin Canning, Nagham Ailabouni, Hunter Alker, Grace Hart, Dicky Soen, Christopher Freeman |
| Journal | International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/intqhc/mzag074
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.