Search

Catatonia is a neuropsychiatric disorder associated with changes in behavior and affect. In adults, catatonia can respond rapidly to treatment with benzodiazepines as part of the "lorazepam challenge test." The acute effectiveness of benzodiazepine treatment in pediatric catatonia, however, has received less study. This study reports catatonia severity as measured by the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) in pediatric patients before and after treatment with lorazepam. Multicenter retrospective cohort study from 1/1/2018 to 6/1/2023 of patients aged 18 and younger with a clinical diagnosis of catatonia and assessment using the BFCRS before and after treatment with lorazepam. Among 54 patients, median age was 16, and 26 (48.1 %) were female. Neurodevelopmental disabilities were present in 24 (44.4 %) of patients. Prior to treatment, patients had a mean BFCRS score of 16.6 ± 6.1, which significantly reduced to 9.5 ± 5.3 following treatment with lorazepam (mean paired difference 7.1; t = 9.0, df = 53, p < 0.001), representing a large effect size (Hedges's g = 1.20; 95 % CI: 0.85 to 1.55). No significant association was found between lorazepam dose or route of administration and clinical response, nor were age, sex, study site, the presence of a neurodevelopmental disorder, the presence of hyperactive catatonic features, or the time between treatment and reassessment associated with post-treatment BFCRS. Lorazepam resulted in a rapid improvement in BFCRS score in pediatric patients, with a large effect size. Further research is needed into optimal dosing and route of administration of the lorazepam challenge test in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Suicidal ideation (SI) is common in patients with depressive symptoms, who are the most common recipients of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We sought to quantify changes in self‐reported SI occurring during treatment with ECT, and to identify factors associated with persistence of SI in patients beginning treatment with SI. Method: Retrospective, single‐center cohort study of patients receiving ECT and who self‐reported symptoms using Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) prior to ECT and after treatment #5 or #10. Changes in QIDS‐reported SI over the course of ECT were calculated, and logistic regression models were performed to assess factors associated with reporting SI at the end of treatment. Results: 2554 provided baseline and follow‐up SI scores, of whom, 1931 (75.6%) endorsed SI at baseline. There was a reduction in SI with ECT treatment (McNemar's test; df = 1, Χ2 = 803.7; p < 0.001), and in adjusted models 64.0% of individuals with baseline SI reported resolution of SI with ECT treatment, while 3.3% without baseline SI reported SI at the end of treatment. Higher baseline SI severity and outpatient treatment were associated with a higher odds of persistent SI among individuals beginning treatment with SI. Conclusion: Electroconvulsive therapy treatment was associated with reductions in self‐reported SI. These results support the use of ECT in the treatment of patients with SI, but further research is needed to determine the effects of ECT on suicidal behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Residual depressive symptoms following treatment are a burden for patients and are associated with increased risk of relapse. While this phenomenon has been explored following pharmacotherapy, there is little research into residual symptoms following electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This study quantifies the frequency and type of residual symptoms following ECT treatment. This study used retrospective data from patients receiving ECT as part of routine clinical care. Depressive symptomatology was assessed using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology – Self-Report 16 item scale (QIDS), which includes 9 symptom domains graded from 0 to 3. We quantified the frequency of mild or greater (QIDS≥1) and moderate or greater (QIDS ≥ 2) residual symptoms following treatment among patients responding to ECT (QIDS decrease ≥50 % from baseline) and non-responders (QIDS decrease <50 %). Among 1799 patients, 1015 (56.4 %) responded to ECT and 784 (43.6 %) did not. Among responders, 99.5 % had at least one residual symptom of mild severity or greater (median = 5, IQR = 3–6) and 83.3 % had at least one residual symptom of moderate severity or greater (median = 1, IQR = 1–2). Among non-responders, 100 % had residual symptoms of mild severity or greater (median = 8, IQR = 7–9), and 99.2 % had a residual symptom of moderate severity or greater (median = 4, IQR = 3–5). The most common residual symptoms among both responders and non-responders were sleep disturbances (93.1 % and 98.7 %, respectively) and sadness (68.9 % and 96.4 %, respectively). Retrospective data from a single freestanding psychiatric hospital. Among patients with depression receiving ECT, there were high rates of residual symptoms even among patients responding to treatment. • This study presents 1799 patients receiving acute-course ECT treatments. • Among those responding to ECT (≥50 % symptom reduction), 99.5 % had at least one residual symptom of mild severity or greater. • Among non-responders, 100 % had residual symptoms of mild severity or greater. • The most common residual symptoms were sleep disturbances and sadness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) devices are classified as class II (moderate risk) for the treatment of depressive disorders and catatonia in patients aged 13 and older, but it is unknown how often the treatment is utilized by child and adolescent patients. The aim of this study was to examine the demographics of child and adolescent hospitalizations involving ECT, the medical and psychiatric comorbidities of these hospitalizations, and the overall number of treatments administered per hospitalization. The 2019 Kids' Inpatient Database, a national sample of pediatric discharges from 3998 acute care hospitals, was analyzed for hospitalizations involving patients aged 19 and younger receiving ECT based on inpatient procedural codes. 315 (95% confidence interval 275 to 354) discharges among child and adolescent patients, or 0.03% of youth hospitalizations, involved the administration of ECT in the KID in 2019. Hospitalizations in the Northeast, those involving patients residing in ZIP codes in the top income quartile, and those for commercially insured patients had higher odds of ECT administration. Primary discharge diagnoses among ECT recipients were major depressive disorder (143; 46.4%), schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (71; 23.1%) and bipolar disorder (59; 19.2%). In total 153 (48.6%) of ECT recipients had a coded diagnosis of suicidal ideation. Hospitalizations involved a median of 2 (IQR 1 to 5) ECT treatments before discharge. ECT is rarely utilized in the inpatient treatment of child and adolescent patients, but is most often administered to patients with mood and psychotic disorders. Commercial insurance and higher income were associated with higher odds of ECT administration, suggesting that access to care may be limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for severe depressive symptoms, yet more research is needed to examine predictors of treatment response, and factors associated with response in patients not initially improving with treatment. This study reports factors associated with time to response (early vs. late) to ECT in a real‐world setting. Methods: This was a retrospective, single‐center cohort study of patients endorsing moderate to severe depressive symptoms using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS; QIDS>10). Response was defined as 50% or greater decrease in QIDS score from baseline. We used logistic regression to predict response at treatment #5 (early response) as well as after treatment #5 (late response) and followed patients through ECT discontinuation or through treatment #20. Results: Of the 1699 patients included in this study, 555 patients (32.7%) responded to ECT treatment at treatment #5 and 397 (23.4%) responded after treatment #5. Among patients who did not respond by treatment #5, those who switched to brief pulse width ECT from ultrabrief pulse ECT had increased odds of response after treatment #5 compared with patients only receiving ultrabrief pulse (aOR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.16–2.07). Additionally, patients with less improvement in QIDS from baseline to treatment #5 had decreased odds of response after treatment #5 (aOR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.97–0.98). Conclusion: Among depressed patients treated with ECT, response occurred in 56.0% of patients by treatment #20. Patient receiving ultrabrief pulse ECT at baseline and who did not respond by treatment #5 had greater odds of subsequent response if switched to brief pulse ECT than if continued with ultrabrief pulse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a critical procedure in psychiatric treatment, but as typically delivered involves the use of bag-mask ventilation (BMV), which during the COVID-19 pandemic exposes patients and treatment staff to potentially infectious aerosols.Objective: To demonstrate the utility of a modified anesthesia protocol for ECT utilizing preoxygenation by facemask and withholding the use of BMV for only those patients who desaturate during the apneic period.Methods: This chart review study analyzes patients who were treated with ECT using both the traditional and modified anesthesia protocols.Results: A total of 106 patients were analyzed, of whom 51 (48.1%) required BMV using the new protocol. Of clinical factors, only patient BMI was significantly associated with the requirement for BMV. Mean seizure duration reduced from 52.0 ± 22.4 to 46.6 ± 17.1 s, but seizure duration was adequate in all cases. No acute physical, respiratory, or psychiatric complications occurred during treatment.Conclusions: A modified anesthesia protocol reduces the use of BMV by more than 50%, while retaining adequate seizure duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for depressive disorders and approved for use in adolescents and adults, but it is unclear whether efficacy or cognitive side effect burden differs with age or if effectiveness in usual clinical practice matches that in prospective studies. We examined the effects of ECT on depression and cognition in a large clinical cohort. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients ages 16 and older receiving ECT between 2011 and 2020 and who were evaluated with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale‐24 (BASIS‐24), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline and after treatment #10. Results: Among 1698 patients, ECT was associated with a decrease in depression symptoms (QIDS reduction from 17.1 ± 4.9 to 10.1 ± 5.2) and improvement in self‐reported mental health (BASIS‐24 scores improved from 1.92 ± 0.55 to 1.17 ± 0.60). There was a reduction in MoCA scores from 25.8 ± 3.1 to 25.4 ± 3.1. In multivariate models, age was not associated with a differential QIDS or BASIS‐24 response, but older age was associated with a lesser reduction in MoCA. Conclusion: Among 1698 patients aged 16 and older, ECT was associated with improvement in depression and overall self‐reported mental health, with a slight decrease in cognition. Age was not associated with changes in efficacy, but older age was associated with a lesser cognitive change as measured by the MoCA. These results provide normative data of real‐world effectiveness of ECT, and add further support to its utility in patients with severe psychiatric illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is the most effective acute treatment for depression, but its use in younger patients is rare and heavily regulated in many U.S. states. It is unclear whether age modifies treatment response or tolerability in adolescents, transitional age youth, and young adults. We examined the effects of ECT on depression and cognition in patients aged 16-30 years. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients aged 16-30 years receiving ECT between 2011 and 2020 who were evaluated with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-24 (BASIS-24), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline and following treatment #10. Results: Among the 424 patients who met the inclusion criteria, ECT was associated with a decrease in depression symptoms (ΔQIDS -6.7; Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; χ2 = 293.37; df = 2; p < 0.0001) and improvement in overall self-reported mental health status (ΔBASIS-24 - 0.70; Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; χ2 = 258.5; df = 2; p < 0.0001) during the first 10 treatments, with a slight reduction in cognition as measured by the MoCA (ΔMoCA -1.1; Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; χ2 = 33.7; df = 1; p < 0.0001). Age was not a significant predictor of QIDS, BASIS-24, or MoCA changes. Conclusions: Among 424 patients aged 16-30 years receiving acute course ECT, age was not a significant predictor of improvement in depression, change in overall self-reported mental health status, or change in cognition. These results support the utility of ECT in the treatment of adolescents and young adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seizure duration has long been measured as a potential marker of ECT treatment efficacy, with concern that short seizures may be clinically ineffective. Relatively small studies have documented a trend towards shorter seizures during acute course ECT, but data from large cohorts would help provide normative data on seizure duration changes during treatment. This study analyzes the effects of age, sex, ECT dose, and treatment number on the duration of electrographic seizures during acute course ECT in a large single-center cohort. A single-center retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients receiving a first course of ECT from 2000 to 2017 at a large freestanding psychiatric hospital. 3648 patients met inclusion criteria, receiving 32,879 acute course ECT treatments. There was a shortening of mean ECT seizure duration over the acute course, with the greatest decrease in duration over the first 3 treatments but continuing decreases over the entire acute course. Older age, higher ECT dose, and increasing treatment number were all associated with shorter seizures, while sex was not significantly associated. Increasing treatment dose was associated with shorter seizures relative to no dose increase, with those patients receiving the highest cumulative doses also having the shortest cumulative seizure time. Among patients undergoing acute-course ECT treatment, seizure duration decreased over the treatment course, and increases in applied electrical charge were associated with shorter seizures. • Seizure duration decreases throughout acute course ECT. • Older age and higher ECT dose are associated with shorter seizures. • Increasing treatment dose is associated with shorter seizures relative to no dose increase. • Patients treated with the highest cumulative doses have the shortest cumulative seizure time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Right unilateral ultrabrief pulse (RUL-UBP) ECT has emerged as a promising technique for minimizing cognitive side effects of ECT while retaining clinical efficacy, but it is unknown how often patients will require alternative treatment parameters and at what point in the treatment course this occurs. To better define this problem, this study analyzes continuation in RUL-UBP ECT in a retrospective cohort of patients beginning acute course treatment. A single-center retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients receiving a first lifetime course of ECT from 2010 to 2017 starting with RUL-UBP treatment parameters. 1793 patients met study criteria. Patients received a mean of 10.0 ± 3.2 ECT treatments, of which a mean of 8.4 ± 3.4 were RUL-UBP treatments; proportion using RUL-UBP through 12 treatments was 57.8%. In total, 65.6% of patients were treated with RUL-UPB ECT exclusively. Mean dose increased from 7.6 × seizure threshold at the second RUL-UBP treatment to 14.3 × seizure threshold at the twelfth RUL-UBP treatment. Rates of continuation in RUL-UBP ECT did not differ based on age or on primary diagnosis of major depression vs. bipolar disorder. Among patients beginning acute-course treatment using RUL-UPB ECT, two thirds were treated with these parameters exclusively. Among patients who received twelve RUL-UBP treatments, mean final dose was 14.3 × seizure threshold. Further studies regarding optimal dosing of RUL-UBP ECT are indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Catatonia is a neuropsychiatric disorder that can occur in the setting of many illnesses, but the frequency of catatonia diagnosis among hospitalized patients is poorly characterized. This study reports the occurrence of catatonia diagnosis among acute care hospital discharges in the United States and the cooccurring diagnoses of these patients. The National Inpatient Sample, an all-payors database of acute care hospital discharges, was queried for patients older than 18 discharged with a diagnosis of catatonia in 2019. 13,630 encounters among the 30,080,038 adult hospitalizations in the NIS during the study year included a diagnosis of catatonia. Total hospital charges for these admissions were $1.15 billion, with 215,165 cumulative hospital days. In this sample, approximately 60% of admissions had a primary psychiatric discharge diagnosis, while 40% had a primary neurologic or medical discharge diagnosis. Procedures were performed in 36.7% of hospitalizations involving catatonia, of which electroconvulsive therapy was most common. Catatonia is a rare but costly discharge diagnosis among patients in acute care hospitals. It occurs across the age spectrum and is associated with a range of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Further research is needed to better characterize the occurrence of catatonia and its optimal treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) effectively treats depressive disorders, but many patients will have subsequent relapses. While some guidelines suggest prior response to ECT is an indication for ECT in a subsequent mood episode, it is unknown whether response to ECT is correlated between treatment courses. This study explores whether response to ECT at a first treatment correlates with response to treatment in a second independent ECT course.Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort of patients receiving two different ECT treatment courses between 2011 and 2020 and who self-reported depression symptoms using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) at baseline and following treatment #5.Results: 286 patients received two independent ECT series during the study period, of whom 153 received at least 5 treatments in both series. Patients had similar QIDS scores at the start of each treatment series (Pearson's correlation, r = 0.58, p <0.001), but the change in QIDS following 5 ECT treatments was not correlated between series for individual patients (Pearson's correlation, r = 0.083, p = 0.31). In multivariate analyses, change in QIDS was similar for both treatment series, but patients were less likely to receive 5 treatments in the second treatment series.Limitations: retrospective cohort cannot control for factors influencing access to repeat ECT treatment CONCLUSIONS: While on average final QIDS score was the same following two independent treatment courses, for individual patients the change in depression symptoms was not correlated between treatment series. Further research is needed to identify factors that may predict longitudinal ECT response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding.Objective: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding.Design: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding.Participants: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding.Main Measures: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding.Key Results: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding.Conclusion: The use of restraints in hospitalized patients is associated with physical and psychological adversity for patients and staff. The minimization of restraint use is a key goal in the hospital setting. Reaching this goal requires an accurate assessment of existing patterns of use across clinical settings.This study reports the rate of physical restraints among patients hospitalized within a multi-entity healthcare network along with stratification by care context, diagnostic, and demographic factors, and examines the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 code Z78.1 “physical restraint status” for defining physical restraints relative to electronic health record (EHR) documentation.The EHR was used for a retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between 2017 and 2022.Hospitalized adults.Patient demographics, structured diagnostic information, care area, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality, Z78.1 coding for physical restraints, restraint documentation in orders and flowsheets.Among 742,607 hospitalizations, 6.3% (n=47,041) involved the use of physical restraint based on coding or EHR documentation. Treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) included restraint in 39% of encounters whereas treatment outside the ICU included restraint use in 1.3% of encounters. Besides critical illness, demographic factors including increasing age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.21 [1.19–1.23]), male gender (aOR=1.56, [1.52–1.60]), unknown race (aOR=1.27 [1.19–1.35]), and preferred language other than English (aOR=1.24, [1.18–1.29]) were associated with higher odds of restraint utilization. As compared to EHR orders or documentation of restraint, the ICD-10 code for physical restraint had a sensitivity of 1.5% and a specificity of 99.99%.Among adults admitted to acute care hospitals, clinical, demographic, and operational factors were associated with increased odds of restraint, with care in the ICU associated with greatly increased odds of restraint. Research into restraint utilization using coded administrative claims data is likely limited by the sensitivity of physical restraint coding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]