Background: Psychiatric hospitals are becoming increasingly digitized because of the disruptive rise in technical possibilities. This digitization leads to new tasks and demands for health professionals, which can have an impact on technostress. It is unclear whether digital competence reduces technostress and how technostress affects health professionals’ mental and physical health. Objective: This study aims to assess the association between digital competence and technostress, considering individual characteristics and the association between technostress and long-term consequences for health professionals. Methods: Cross-sectional data from 3 Swiss psychiatric hospitals were analyzed using multiple linear regression. The dependent variables for the models were digital competence, technostress, and long-term consequences (intention to leave the organization or the profession, burnout symptoms, job satisfaction, general health status, quality of sleep, headaches, and work ability). One model was calculated for each long-term consequence. The mean scores for technostress and digital competence could range between 0 (fully disagree) and 4 (fully agree), where a high value for technostress indicated high technostress and a high value for digital competence indicated high digital competence. Results: The sample comprised 493 health professionals in psychiatric hospitals. They rated their technostress as moderate (mean 1.30, SD 0.55) and their digital competence as high (mean 2.89, SD 0.73). Digital competence was found to be significantly associated with technostress (β=−.20; P<.001). Among the individual characteristics, age (β=.004; P=.03) and profession were significantly associated with both digital competence and technostress. Technostress is a relevant predictor of burnout symptoms (β=10.32; P<.001), job satisfaction (β=−6.08; P<.001), intention to leave the profession (β=4.53; P=.002), organization (β=7.68; P<.001), general health status (β=−4.47; P<.001), quality of sleep (β=−5.87; P<.001), headaches (β=6.58; P<.001), and work ability (β=−1.40; P<.001). Conclusions: Physicians and nurses who have more interaction with digital technologies rate their technostress higher and their digital competence lower than those in other professions. Health professionals with low interaction with digital technologies appear to overestimate their digital competence. With increasing digitization in psychiatric hospitals, an increase in the relevance of this topic is expected. Educational organizations and psychiatric hospitals should proactively promote the digital competence of health professionals to manage expected disruptive changes.

Objectives: The objectives of the study are to study daily hospital practice regarding detection and management and to study hyperactive and hypoactive delirium of older patients during their hospitalization.Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluating care as usual for older hospitalized patients with delirium at Maastricht University Medical Center+, a university hospital in the Netherlands, was performed. Inclusion criteria were older hospitalized patients (65+ years), diagnosed with delirium between 1 January and 31 December 2014. Data were retrieved from the patients' medical files. Delirium was categorized as hyperactive or hypoactive. Primary outcome measures were prevalence and management (pharmacological, reorientation, screening for delirium and delirium consultations, and physical restraints). Secondary outcomes were short‐term adverse outcomes.Results: Prevalence of delirium was 5% (N = 401), of which 77% (n = 307) was hyperactive and 23% (n = 94) was hypoactive. Significantly, more patients with a hyperactive delirium received medication to manage the delirium than patients with a hypoactive delirium (89% vs. 77%, respectively, p = 0.004). No other significant differences between the subtypes were found.Conclusion: There was probably a strong under‐recognition of delirium. Drugs were the main intervention of choice, especially for patients with hyperactive delirium. The two subtypes did not differ on non‐pharmacological management. The retrospective nature of this study sheds light on the status quo of recognition, management, and care as usual for the different delirium subtypes in daily hospital practice, which may help in forming new guidelines and protocols for the detection and treatment of delirium for older patients in hospitals.

Restraints are likely to negatively affect patients' health and therefore a reduction in their usage is recommended for all health-care settings. To date, research on restrictive practices has concentrated on mental health and long-term care settings. In the acute-care hospital setting few studies have been published and these studies mainly focus on physical/mechanical restraints in specific subpopulations and/or on intensive care units. However, to ensure restraints are used as little as possible in the acute-care hospital setting, it seems important to investigate more comprehensively the use of restraints, to include all types of restraints irrespective of ward type or subpopulations and to identify factors associated with restraint use. The aim of this study was to investigate restraint use regardless of ward type in the acute-care hospital setting, including restraint type, reasons for restraint use, process indicators when using restraints and restraint use-associated patient characteristics. Using a cross-sectional multi-centre design, data were collected by means of an annual international prevalence measurement in acute-care hospitals in Switzerland and Austria. All hospitalised patients aged 18+ who gave informed consent were included. Data were collected at three measurement points between 2016 and 2018. Descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. A total of 29,477 patients hospitalised in 140 hospitals were included in this study. The prevalence rate for the use of at least one restraint over a 30-day period was 8.7% (n = 2577), with mechanical restraints representing the highest proportion of restraint type used (55.0%, n = 1417). The main reason for restraint use was fall prevention (43.8%, n = 1129), followed by confusion or delirious behaviour (20.4%, n = 525). In 64.3% of the cases (n = 1657), restraint use was documented in the patient file. Regular evaluation occurred in 42.9% of the cases (n = 1105). Care dependency had the strongest association with restraint use (odds ratio [OR] 25.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21.01-29.78 for completely dependant patients in comparison to completely independent patients), followed by mental and behavioural disorders (OR 2.36, 95% CI 2.15-2.59). Restraints are often utilised in hospitals in complex care situations such as with patients at risk of falling or with delirium. When using restraints the consideration of processes like documentation and evaluation shows great potential for improvement. Standardisation of these processes and education of the interprofessional team could be beneficial for raising awareness and for the sustainable reduction of restraint use. Tweetable In hospitals restraints are often used in complex care situations. However, their use seems to be insufficiently documented and evaluated.