OLDER PEOPLE Does access to bed-chair pressure sensors reduce physical restraint use in the rehabilitative care setting? Timothy Kwok MD, FRCP Associate Professor, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Francis Mok FRCP Consultant Geriatrician, Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong Wai Tong Chien BN, MPhil Associate Professor, The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Eric Tam MSc Lecturer and Project Engineer, Jockey Club Rehabilitation Engineering Centre, PolyTechnic University, Hong Kong Submitted for publication: 26 June 2005 Accepted for publication: 4 July 2005 Correspondence: Timothy Kwok Department of Medicine and Therapeutics Prince of Wales Hospital The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong Telephone: 852-26323128 E-mail: tkwok@cuhk.edu.hk KWOK T, MOK F, CHIEN W-T & TAM E KWOK T, MOK F, CHIEN W-T & TAM E (2006) (2006) Journal of Clinical Nursing 15, 581–587 Does access to bed-chair pressure sensors reduce physical restraint use in the rehabilitative care setting? Background. The common use of physical restraints in older people in hospitals and nursing homes has been associated with injurious falls, decreased mobility and disorientation. By offering access to bed-chair pressure sensors in hospitalized patients with perceived fall risk, nurses may be less inclined to resort to physical restraints, thereby improving clinical outcomes. Aims and objectives. To investigate whether the access of bed-chair pressure sensors reduces physical restraint use in geriatric rehabilitation wards. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Methods. Consecutively, patients admitted to two geriatric wards specialized in stroke rehabilitation in a convalescent hospital in Hong Kong, and who were per- ceived by nurses to be at risk of falls were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. For the intervention group subjects, nurses were given access to bed- chair pressure sensors. These sensors were not available to control group subjects, as in usual practice. The trial continued until discharge. The primary outcomes were the proportion of subjects restrained by trunk restraint, bedrails or chair-board and the proportion of trial days in which each type of physical restraint was applied. The secondary outcomes were the proportions of those who improved in the mobility and transfer domains of modified Barthel index on discharge and of those who fell. Results. One hundred and eighty subjects were randomized. Fifty (55Æ6%) out of the 90 intervention group subjects received the intervention. There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the proportions and duration of having the three types of physical restraints. There was also no group difference in the chance of improving in mobility and transfer ability, and of having a fall. Ó 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 581