|
My survey team, upstate NY the definition has many components 1) limits normal functional ability 2) limits access to ones body 3) limits freedom of movement within the device. 4) Resident is unable to remove with “purposeful intent”. They do judge this by the expectation that the resident will be able to remove on command. We argued r/t those residents they observed removing the device and throwing them around at will. They stated this is “a behavior” for most of residents and not a conscious effort to remove for any specific intent. Made sense after we thought it over. 5) Also, side rails need to be assessed for visual field cut/socialization issues etc. I found this whole concept easier to swallow once I reached the realization that the true intent of the MDS is care planning and that is what is behind the whole thing. To make sure we have care planned all interventions to provide high level of care to resident. We redid our whole policy and procedure using these guidelines a couple of years ago and have not even had “honorable mention” at exit conference since.
-----Original Message-----
I thought for a device to meet the definition of restraint it had to restrict movement and resident could not remove.
Timma
|
- Survey chil1193
- Re: Survey Debbie Ohl
- Re: Survey Michelle Witges
- RE: Survey k.karren
- RE: Survey JENNIFER VOLKMAN
- Re: Survey mdsc
- Re: Survey Faye Jones
- Re: Survey PalmSpringsRN1
- Survey Colleen Wolf
- Re: Survey Kathy Danielson
- Re: Survey Colleen Wolf
- Re: Survey Kathy Danielson
- Re: Survey Colleen Wolf
- RE: Survey Cathy Petros
- Re: Survey Colleen Wolf
- Re: Survey NJMDSRN
- RE: Survey PalmSpringsRN1
