Learning from tragedy: A survey of child and adolescent restraint fatalities
Abstract
Objective This descriptive study examines 45 child and adolescent fatalities related to restraints in residential (institutional) placements in the United States from 1993 to 2003. Method The study team used common Internet search engines as its primary case discovery strategy to determine the frequency and the nature of the fatalities, as well as the characteristics of the children and the adolescents involved. Results Male children and adolescents were over-represented in the study sample. Thirty-eight of the fatalities occurred during or after a physical restraint, and 7 fatalities occurred during the use of mechanical restraints. Twenty-eight of the deaths occurred in a prone restraint. In 25 of the fatalities, asphyxia was the cause of death. Conclusion In the 23 cases in this study where information is available, none of the child behaviors or conditions that prompted the restraint would meet the standard of danger to self or others: the commonly accepted criteria for the use of a restraint. The study points to deficiencies in fatality reporting, recommends reporting fatalities to established state child fatality review boards, and reinforces that restraints be governed by strict protocol and monitoring. The study also urges caution to policymakers in substituting or changing restraint procedures based on the incomplete data reported in this study.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Behavioral incidents such as these can escalate into physical restraint or, in extreme cases, result in injury or death.
“Given that incidents such as these can escalate into physical restraint or, in extreme cases, result in injury or death (Day 2002; Nunno et al. 2006), the potential benefits of reducing behavioral incidents can be profound.”
From Intervening at the Setting Level to Prevent Behavioral Incidents in Residential Child Care: Efficacy of the CARE Program Model (2016) · cites this paper as Nunno et al. 2006
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nash, K. A., Tolliver, D. G., Taylor, R. A., Calhoun, A. J., Auerbach, M. A., Venkatesh, A. K., & Wong, A. H. (2021) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.3348 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Izzo, C. V., Smith, E. G., Holden, M. J., Norton, C. I., Nunno, M. A., & Sellers, D. E. (2016) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0649-0 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationMcDonnell, A., McCreadie, M., Mills, R., Deveau, R., Anker, R., & Hayden, J. (2015) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.09.012 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nunno, M. A., Holden, M. J., & Tollar, A.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nunno, Michael A.
- Venue
- Child Abuse & Neglect
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1333-1342
- ISSN
- 0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2076049657
- Cited by
- 117
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 6.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Restraint-Related Deaths
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
- Keywords
- physical restraint, child fatalities, asphyxia, mechanical restraint, residential care, institutional placement, restraint protocols, child abuse policy
- MeSH terms
- Accidents, Adolescent, Asphyxia, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Surveys and Questionnaires, Residential Facilities, Restraint, Physical, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review