What is the main difference between restraining a patient and immobilizing a patient?

The distinction between restraining and immobilizing a patient primarily revolves around the concepts of consent and the means by which each action is carried out. Restraining a patient generally involves the use of physical force to limit a patient’s movement against their will. This action is often taken in situations where the patient poses a risk to themselves or others, and it does not require the patient’s consent because it is driven by immediate safety concerns.

On the other hand, immobilizing a patient typically refers to methods used to stabilize a patient’s position for medical procedures, such as during imaging or surgery. This practice is usually performed with the patient’s understanding and consent, especially if it is part of a planned medical intervention. Therefore, the key difference lies in the nature of consent and the methods utilized: restraining does not involve consent and uses physical force, whereas immobilizing is done with patient consent and focuses on medical necessity rather than control.

This understanding highlights the ethical and legal implications of both actions, emphasizing the importance of patient autonomy and the appropriate context for each intervention.