Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Patient-initiated device removal in intensive care units: A national prevalence study *

Mion, Lorraine C. PhD, RN, FAAN; Minnick, Ann F. PhD, RN, FAAN; Leipzig, Rosanne M. MD, PhD; Catrambone, Catherine D. PhD, RN; Johnson, Mary E. PhD, RN

Continuing Medical Education Article

Objective: Information is needed about patient-initiated device removal to guide quality initiatives addressing regulations aimed at minimizing physical restraint use. Research objectives were to determine the prevalence of device removal, describe patient contexts, examine unit-level adjusted risk factors, and describe consequences.

Design: Prospective prevalence.

Setting: Total of 49 adult intensive care units (ICUs) from a random sample of 39 hospitals in five states.

Methods: Data were collected daily for 49,482 patient-days by trained nurses and included unit census, ventilator days, restraint days, and days accounted for by men and by elderly. For each device removal episode, data were collected on demographic and clinical variables.

Results: Patients removed 1,623 devices on 1,097 occasions: overall rate, 22.1 episodes/1000 patient-days; range, 0–102.4. Surgical ICUs had lower rates (16.1 episodes) than general (23.6 episodes) and medical (23.4 episodes) ICUs. ICUs with fewer resources had fewer all-type device removal relative to ICUs with greater resources (relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.87) but higher self-extubation rates (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–1.52). Men accounted for 57% of the episodes, 44% were restrained at the time, and 30% had not received any sedation, narcotic, or psychotropic drug in the previous 24 hrs. There was no association between rates of device removal with restraint rates, proportion of men, or elderly. Self-extubation rates were inversely associated with ventilator days (rs = -0.31,p= .03). Patient harm occurred in 250 (23%) episodes; ten incurred major harm. No deaths occurred. Reinsertion rates varied by device: 23.5% of surgical drains to 88.9% of monitor leads. Additional resources (e.g., radiography) were used in 58% of the episodes.

Conclusion: Device removal by ICU patients is common, resulting in harm in one fourth of patients and significant resource expenditure. Further examination of patient-, unit-, and practitioner-level variables may help explain variation in rates and provide direction for further targeted interventions.

Director, Nursing Research and Geriatric Nursing, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH (LCM); Senior Associate Dean—Research, Julia Eleanor Chenault Professor of Nursing, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, TN (AFM); Vice Chair for Education, Gerald and May Ellen Ritter Professor of Geriatrics, Professor, Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Adult Development, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, NY (RML); Assistant Professor, Adult Health Nursing (CDC), Associate Professor (MEJ), College of Nursing, Rush University, Chicago, IL.

Supported by grant 1R01AG19715–01 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.

The contents herein are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.

For information regarding this article, E-mail:

*See also p. 2859.

Copyright © by 2007 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.