Which statement about restraint policy is true?

Which statement about restraint policy is true?

• A. Last resort; discontinue early.
• B. Restraints should be used routinely for all patients.
• C. Restraints have no impact on safety.
• D. Restraints should never be reviewed.

Answer: (A)

Restraints should be used only as a last-resort safety measure and removed as soon as it is safely possible. In older adults, especially those with cognitive impairment, restraints carry meaningful risks—physical harm from agitation, falls, or entanglement; skin breakdown and pressure ulcers from immobility; pneumonia and deconditioning; worsened delirium or confusion; and significant emotional distress. Because of these harms, best practice emphasizes nonrestrictive strategies first, close monitoring, and regular reassessment with the clear aim of discontinuing the restraint at the earliest safe moment. This approach also aligns with ethical and legal considerations, requiring documentation, ongoing justification, and a plan for safer alternatives like increased supervision, de-escalation techniques, environmental modifications, pain management, and involvement of family or caregivers. So the statement that restraint use is appropriate only as a last resort and should be discontinued early reflects the safest and most appropriate policy. The other ideas—using restraints routinely for all patients, claiming they have no safety impact, or never reviewing their necessity—go against recognized safety, dignity, and quality-of-care standards.

Restraints should be used only as a last-resort safety measure and removed as soon as it is safely possible. In older adults, especially those with cognitive impairment, restraints carry meaningful risks—physical harm from agitation, falls, or entanglement; skin breakdown and pressure ulcers from immobility; pneumonia and deconditioning; worsened delirium or confusion; and significant emotional distress. Because of these harms, best practice emphasizes nonrestrictive strategies first, close monitoring, and regular reassessment with the clear aim of discontinuing the restraint at the earliest safe moment. This approach also aligns with ethical and legal considerations, requiring documentation, ongoing justification, and a plan for safer alternatives like increased supervision, de-escalation techniques, environmental modifications, pain management, and involvement of family or caregivers.

So the statement that restraint use is appropriate only as a last resort and should be discontinued early reflects the safest and most appropriate policy. The other ideas—using restraints routinely for all patients, claiming they have no safety impact, or never reviewing their necessity—go against recognized safety, dignity, and quality-of-care standards.