Staff education, regular sedation and analgesia quality feedback, and a sedation monitoring technology for improving sedation and analgesia quality for critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: a cluster randomised trial

Effects of implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Implementation strategies targeting individual healthcare professionals and teams, such as audit and feedback, educational meetings, opinion leaders, and reminders, have demonstrated potential in promoting evidence-based nursing practice. This systematic review examined the effects of the 19 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization Care (EPOC) healthcare professional-level implementation strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the Cochrane Handbook, with six databases searched up to February 2023 for randomized studies and non-randomized controlled studies evaluating the effects of EPOC implementation strategies on nursing practice. Study selection and data extraction were performed in Covidence. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan, while studies not eligible for meta-analysis were synthesized narratively based on the direction of effects. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

Out of 21,571 unique records, 204 studies (152 randomized, 52 controlled, non-randomized) enrolling 36,544 nurses and 340,320 patients were included. Common strategies (> 10% of studies) were educational meetings, educational materials, guidelines, reminders, audit and feedback, tailored interventions, educational outreach, and opinion leaders. Implementation strategies as a whole improved clinical practice outcomes compared to no active intervention, despite high heterogeneity. Group and individual education, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, tailored interventions and opinion leaders had statistically significant effects on clinical practice outcomes. Individual education improved nurses' attitude, knowledge, perceived control, and skills, while group education also influenced perceived social norms. Although meta-analyses indicate a small, non-statistically significant effect of multifaceted versus single strategies on clinical practice, the narrative synthesis of non-meta-analyzed studies shows favorable outcomes in all studies comparing multifaceted versus single strategies. Group and individual education, as well as tailored interventions, had statistically significant effects on patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple types of implementation strategies may enhance evidence-based nursing practice, though effects vary due to strategy complexity, contextual factors, and variability in outcome measurement. Some evidence suggests that multifaceted strategies are more effective than single component strategies. Effects on patient outcomes are modest. Healthcare organizations and implementation practitioners may consider employing multifaceted, tailored strategies to address local barriers, expand the use of underutilized strategies, and assess the long-term impact of strategies on nursing practice and patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019130446.

Early Deep Sedation Practices Worsened During the Pandemic Among Adult Patients Without COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that patients with COVID-19 were treated with sustained deep sedation during the pandemic. However, it is unknown whether such guideline-discordant care had spillover effects to patients without COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Did patterns of early deep sedation change during the pandemic for patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We used electronic health record data from 4,237 patients who were intubated without COVID-19. We compared sedation practices in the first 48 h after intubation across prepandemic (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2020), pandemic (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021), and late pandemic (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022) periods.

RESULTS

In the prepandemic period, patients spent an average of 13.0 h deeply sedated in the first 48 h after intubation. This increased 1.9 h (95% CI, 1.0-2.8) during the pandemic period and 2.9 h (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) in the late pandemic period. The proportion of patients that spent over one-half of the first 48 h deeply sedated was 18.9% in the prepandemic period, 22.3% during the pandemic period, and 25.9% during the late pandemic period. Ventilator-free days decreased during the pandemic, with a subdistribution hazard ratio of being alive without mechanical ventilation at 28 days of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95) compared with the prepandemic period. Tracheostomy placement increased during the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). In the medical ICU, early deep sedation increased 2.5 h (95% CI, 0.6-4.4) during the pandemic period and 4.9 h (95% CI, 3.0-6.9) during the late pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period.

INTERPRETATION

We found that among patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19, sedation use increased during the pandemic. In the subsequent year, these practices did not return to prepandemic standards.

Interventions for improving critical care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the typology, impact, quality of evidence, barriers, and facilitators to implementation of Quality Improvement (QI) interventions for adult critical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 1st September 2022. The studies were included if they described the implementation of QI interventions for adult critical care in LMICs, available as full text, in English and published after 2000. The risks of bias were assessed using the ROB 2.0/ROBINS-I tools. Intervention strategies were categorised according to a Knowledge Translation framework. Interventions' effectiveness were synthesised by vote counting and assessed with a binomial test. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were narratively synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

78 studies were included. Risk of bias was high. The most common intervention strategies were Education, Audit & Feedback (A&F) and Protocols/Guidelines/Bundles/Checklists (PGBC). Two multifaceted strategies improved both process and outcome measures: Education and A&F (p = 0.008); and PGBC with Education and A&F (p = 0.001, p < 0.001). Facilitators to implementation were stakeholder engagement, organisational readiness for implementation, and adaptability of interventions. Barriers were lack of resources and incompatibility with clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for QI in critical care in LMICs is sparse and at high risk of bias but suggests that multifaceted interventions are most effective. Co-designing interventions with and engaging stakeholders, communicating relative advantages, employing local champions and adapting to feedback can improve implementation. Hybrid study designs, process evaluations and adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the evidence base.

Optimal strategies for assessing and managing pain, agitation, and delirium in the critically ill surgical patient: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) are primary drivers of outcome in the ICU, and expertise in managing these entities successfully is crucial to the intensivist's toolbox. In addition, there are unique aspects of surgical patients that impact assessment and management of PAD. In this review, we address the continuous spectrum of assessment, and management of critically ill surgical patients, with a focus on limiting PAD, particularly incorporating mobility as an anchor to ICU liberation. Finally, we touch on the impact of PAD in specific populations, including opioid use disorder, traumatic brain injury, pregnancy, obesity, alcohol withdrawal, and geriatric patients. The goal of the review is to provide rapid access to information regarding PAD and tools to assess and manage these important elements of critical care of surgical patients.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

Effect of Pain Education Interventions on Registered Nurses' Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This review and meta-analysis aims to reveal how pain education interventions affect registered nurses' pain management.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and ERIC REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed English or Finnish-language articles published between 2008 and 2021. The review included a quality appraisal and a meta-analysis of articles providing group-level data before and after the intervention (n = 12). The methods followed the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review, of which 15 were evaluated as good quality. Based on the articles on document audits (n = 10), pain education interventions reduced the risk of not receiving the best pain management by 40%, whereas based on the articles on patients' experiences (n = 4), they reduced the risk by 25%. The study quality and design of these articles were considerably heterogenous.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain education study strategies varied widely among the included articles. These articles used multivariate interventions without systematization or sufficient opportunity to transfer the study protocols. It can be concluded that versatile pain nursing education interventions, as well as auditing of pain nursing and its documentation combined with feedback, can be effective to nurses in adapting pain management and assessment practices and increasing patient satisfaction. However, further research is required in this regard. In addition, well-designed, implemented, and reproducible evidence-based pain education intervention is required in the future.

What are the perceptions of intensive care staff about their sedation practices when caring for a mechanically ventilated patient?: A systematic mixed-methods review

Background

Sedation is used alongside mechanical ventilation for patients in intensive care units internationally; its use is complex and multifaceted. Existing evidence shows that the ways health care professionals use sedation significantly impacts patient outcomes, including how long someone spends on a ventilator, length of stay in intensive care and recovery.

Objective

Our study aimed to systematically review and synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence about how intensive care staff perceive sedation practices when looking after sedated and mechanically ventilated patients.

Design

We performed a systematic integrated mixed-methods literature review collecting qualitative and quantitative studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they were published from 2009 and focused on perceptions of staff working in general adult intensive care units and caring for mechanically ventilated patients.

Settings

General adult intensive care units.

Participants

Health care professionals working in adult intensive care units.

Methods

Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken by SV. Screening for inclusion and quality issues were reviewed by TR, TM and JS. The following databases: Embase, BNI, PubMed, Scopus, AMED, CINAHL, ASSIA, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. We used an assessment tool called the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The studies were assessed and analysed by transforming the qualitative and quantitative data into 'text-in-context' statements. The statements were then synthesized using thematic analysis.

Results

Eighteen studies were included from ten countries, fourteen quantitative and four qualitative. Three overarching themes were identified: 'Variation in Decision Making', 'Challenges in Decision Making' and 'Thinking Outside the Box'. Existing studies revealed that there is considerable variation in most aspects of perceived sedation practice. Staff face challenges with interprofessional collaboration and sedation practice, and there are barriers to using sedation protocols and light sedation. There is also evidence that there is a need for health care professionals to develop coping strategies to help them facilitate lighter sedation.

Conclusions

A review of a decade of evidence shows that variation in decision making and challenges in decision making should be addressed to improve the care of the sedated and ventilated patient, and improve the caregiving experience for staff. Staff continue to require support with sedation practice, especially in light sedation. Research should now focus on how to help staff cope with looking after lightly sedated patients. In addition, future studies should focus on exploring sedation practices using qualitative methods as there is a dearth of qualitative evidence.

Tweetable abstract

Staff perceive a range of complex challenges that explain some of the variability in sedation practice for the ventilated patient in ICU.

Clinical Nurse Specialist Practice: Impact on Improving Sedation Practice in Critical Care

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Prolonged mechanical ventilation results from deeper levels of sedation. This may lead to impaired respiratory muscle functioning that develops into pneumonia, increases antibiotic use, increases delirium risk, and increases length of hospitalization. A trauma and surgical intensive care unit interdisciplinary team conducted a quality improvement project to lighten sedation levels and shorten mechanical ventilation time.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The project included multimodal elements to improve sedation practice. Standardizing the spontaneous awakening trial algorithm, creation of electronic health record tools, integration of sedation practices into daily rounds, and focused education for nursing were implemented in April 2021 through October 2021.

OUTCOME

A reduction of median hours spent on mechanical ventilation was achieved. Mechanical ventilation hours decreased from 77 to 70. Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale levels improved from a median of -2 to -1, and daily spontaneous awakening trials increased from 10% to 27% completed.

CONCLUSION

The quality improvement project demonstrated that, with increased daily spontaneous awakening trials and lighter sedation levels, the time patients spent on mechanical ventilation was shortened. There was no increase to self-extubation with lighter sedations levels. Shorter time on mechanical ventilation can reduce patient harm risks.

Seeking the Light in Intensive Care Unit Sedation: The Optimal Sedation Strategy for Critically Ill Patients

The clinical approach to sedation in critically ill patients has changed dramatically over the last two decades, moving to a regimen of light or non-sedation associated with adequate analgesia to guarantee the patient’s comfort, active interaction with the environment and family, and early mobilization and assessment of delirium. Although deep sedation (DS) may still be necessary for certain clinical scenarios, it should be limited to strict indications, such as mechanically ventilated patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), status epilepticus, intracranial hypertension, or those requiring target temperature management. DS, if not indicated, is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, and increased mortality. Therefore, continuous monitoring of the level of sedation, especially when associated with the raw EEG data, is important to avoid unnecessary oversedation and to convert a DS strategy to light sedation as soon as possible. The approach to the management of critically ill patients is multidimensional, so targeted sedation should be considered in the context of the ABCDEF bundle, a holistic patient approach. Sedation may interfere with early mobilization and family engagement and may have an impact on delirium assessment and risk. If adequately applied, the ABCDEF bundle allows for a patient-centered, multidimensional, and multi-professional ICU care model to be achieved, with a positive impact on appropriate sedation and patient comfort, along with other important determinants of long-term patient outcomes.

Study protocol to test the efficacy of self-administration of dexmedetomidine sedative therapy on anxiety, delirium, and ventilator days in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: an open-label randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Administration of sedative and opioid medications to patients receiving mechanical ventilatory support in the intensive care unit is a common clinical practice.

METHODS

A two-site randomized open-label clinical trial will test the efficacy of self-management of sedative therapy with dexmedetomidine compared to usual care on anxiety, delirium, and duration of ventilatory support after randomization. Secondary objectives are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on level of alertness, total aggregate sedative and opioid medication exposure, and ventilator-free days up to day 28 after study enrolment. Exploratory objectives of the study are to compare self-management of sedative therapy to usual care on 3- and 6-month post-discharge physical and functional status, psychological well-being (depression, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder), health-related quality of life, and recollections of ICU care. ICU patients (n = 190) who are alert enough to follow commands to self-manage sedative therapy are randomly assigned to self-management of sedative therapy or usual care. Patients remain in the ICU sedative medication study phase for up to 7 days as long as mechanically ventilated.

DISCUSSION

The care of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients can change significantly over the course of a 5-year clinical trial. Changes in sedation and pain interventions, oxygenation approaches, and standards related to extubation have substantially impacted consistency in the number of eligible patients over time. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in mandated extended pauses in trial enrolment as well as alterations in recruitment methods out of concern for study personnel safety and availability of protective equipment. Patient triaging among healthcare institutions due to COVID-19 cases also has resulted in inconsistent access to the eligible study population. This has made it even more imperative for the study team to be flexible and innovative to identify and enrol all eligible participants. Patient-controlled sedation is a novel approach to the management of patient symptoms that may be able to alleviate mechanical ventilation-induced distress without serious side effects. Findings from this study will provide insight into the efficacy of this approach on short- and long-term outcomes in a subset of mechanically ventilated patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02819141. Registered on June 29, 2016.

Process evaluations undertaken alongside randomised controlled trials in the hospital setting: A scoping review

Background

There is increasing recognition of the importance of undertaking process evaluations alongside implementation of health interventions by examining mechanisms of impact and contextual factors. However, a comprehensive synthesis of process evaluations undertaken alongside clinical trials in hospital settings is lacking. We undertook a scoping review to address this gap.

Methods

This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping studies. Studies were identified using four databases; Ovid Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Two authors independently screened all titles and available abstracts, with a third author available to adjudicate. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described a process evaluation undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial in the hospital setting. Data were abstracted by one author and checked by two others and analysed both descriptively and using inductive content analysis.

Results

Data were extracted from 30 articles reporting on 15 trials, most of which were cluster randomised trials (c-RTs) (n = 12). The most common data collection methods used in process evaluations were interviews, questionnaires or surveys, and records or logs. Data analysis revealed three themes relative to how authors: use process data to interpret, understand and explain trial outcomes; evaluate responses to the intervention; and consider the implementation context.

Conclusions

Findings from this review demonstrate the complex nature of intervention implementation in the hospital setting. Overall, there is need for standardised reporting of process evaluations and more explicit descriptions of how authors use frameworks to guide their evaluation.

The efficacy and safety of nurse-initiated sedation management in an intensive care unit: A two-phase prospective study in Japan

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse-initiated sedation management could provide more appropriate sedation compared to usual care in a Japanese intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective observational study before and after implementing nurse-initiated sedation using instruction sheets. Patients who had been admitted to a general adult ICU were enrolled. Before our ICU started nurse-initiated sedation (pre-implementation care), adjustment of sedatives and analgesics was performed only by a physician's written or verbal order; however, after implementing nurse-initiated sedation, nurses titrated drugs using instruction sheets. The primary outcome was the efficacy of nurse-initiated sedation, evaluated by the proportion achieving the target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score. The analgesic status evaluated by Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), days of delirium, ventilator days, ICU mortality and hospital mortality were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The study examined 30 patients in the pre-implementation care phase and 30 patients in the nurse-initiated sedation phase. The proportions achieving the target RASS were 68% in the nurse-initiated sedation group and 42% in the pre-implementation care group (mean difference, 25%; 95% confidence interval, 13.4%-37.5%; P <.001). Almost all measured CPOT were within the range of 0-3 during both phases. Days of delirium, ventilator days, ICU survival, and hospital survival did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-initiated sedation management achieved a significantly higher degree of target sedation status and was incorporated as part of the care in our ICU. It is a safe approach in countries, such as Japan, where sedation protocols are not widely used.

Co-ordinated multidisciplinary intervention to reduce time to successful extubation for children on mechanical ventilation: the SANDWICH cluster stepped-wedge RCT

BACKGROUND

Daily assessment of patient readiness for liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation can reduce the duration of ventilation. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of this in a paediatric population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of a ventilation liberation intervention in critically ill children who are anticipated to have a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (primary objective) and in all children (secondary objective).

DESIGN

A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial with economic and process evaluations.

SETTING

Paediatric intensive care units in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Invasively mechanically ventilated children (aged < 16 years).

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention incorporated co-ordinated multidisciplinary care, patient-relevant sedation plans linked to sedation assessment, assessment of ventilation parameters with a higher than usual trigger for undertaking an extubation readiness test and a spontaneous breathing trial on low levels of respiratory support to test extubation readiness. The comparator was usual care. Hospital sites were randomised sequentially to transition from control to intervention and were non-blinded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation until the first successful extubation. The secondary outcome measures were successful extubation, unplanned extubation and reintubation, post-extubation use of non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, post-extubation stridor, adverse events, length of intensive care and hospital stay, mortality and cost per respiratory complication avoided at 28 days.

RESULTS

The trial included 10,495 patient admissions from 18 paediatric intensive care units from 5 February 2018 to 14 October 2019. In children with anticipated prolonged ventilation (n = 8843 admissions: control, n = 4155; intervention, n = 4688), the intervention resulted in a significantly shorter time to successful extubation [cluster and time-adjusted median difference -6.1 hours (interquartile range -8.2 to -5.3 hours); adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.02] and a higher incidence of successful extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.02; p = 0.03) and unplanned extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.51; p = 0.03), but not reintubation (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.36; p = 0.38). In the intervention period, the use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation was significantly higher (adjusted relative risk 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.49; p = 0.04), with no evidence of a difference in intensive care length of stay or other harms, but hospital length of stay was longer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.97; p = 0.01). Findings for all children were broadly similar. The control period was associated with lower, but not statistically significantly lower, total costs (cost difference, mean £929.05, 95% confidence interval -£516.54 to £2374.64) and significantly fewer respiratory complications avoided (mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.16 to -0.03).

LIMITATIONS

The unblinded intervention assignment may have resulted in performance or detection bias. It was not possible to determine which components were primarily responsible for the observed effect. Treatment effect in a more homogeneous group remains to be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention resulted in a statistically significant small reduction in time to first successful extubation; thus, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should explore intervention sustainability and effects of the intervention in other paediatric populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16998143.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in an intensive care unit: an experience of a Canadian community hospital in conducting a quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines suggest that routine assessment, treatment, and prevention of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) is essential to improving patient outcomes as delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Despite the well-established improvements on patient outcomes, adherence to PAD guidelines is poor in community intensive care units (ICU). This quality improvement (QI) project aims to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD management in a Canadian community ICU and to describe the experience of a Canadian community hospital in conducting a QI project.

METHODS

A ten-member PAD advisory committee was formed to develop and implement the intervention. The intervention consisted of a multidisciplinary rounds script, poster, interviews, visual reminders, educational modules, pamphlet and video. The 4-week intervention targeted nurses, family members, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team. An uncontrolled, before-and-after study methodology was used. Adherence to PAD assessment guidelines by nurses was measured over a 6-week pre-intervention and over a 6-week post-intervention periods.

RESULTS

Data on 430 and 406 patient-days (PD) were available for analysis during the pre- and post- intervention periods, respectively. The intervention did not improve the proportion of PD with guideline compliance to the assessment of pain (23.4% vs. 22.4%, p=0.80), agitation (42.9% vs. 38.9%, p=0.28), nor delirium (35.2% vs. 29.6%, p=0.10) by nurses.

DISCUSSION

The implementation of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD assessment did not result in significant improvements in guideline adherence in a community ICU. Barriers to knowledge translation are apparent at multiple levels including the personal level (low completion rates on educational modules), interventional level (under-collection of data), and organisational level (coinciding with hospital accreditation education). Our next steps include reintroduction of education modules using organisation approved platforms, updating existing ICU policy, updating admission order sets, and conducting audit and feedback.

Tools Are Needed to Promote Sedation Practices for Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Suboptimal sedation practices continue to be frequent, although the updated guidelines for management of pain, agitation, and delirium in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients have been published for several years. Causes of low adherence to the recommended minimal sedation protocol are multifactorial. However, the barriers to translation of these protocols into standard care for MV patients have yet to be analyzed. In our view, it is necessary to develop fresh insights into the interaction between the patients' responses to nociceptive stimuli and individualized regulation of patients' tolerance when using analgesics and sedatives. By better understanding this interaction, development of novel tools to assess patient pain tolerance and to define and predict oversedation or delirium may promote better sedation practices in the future.

Responsiveness Index versus the RASS-Based Method for Adjusting Sedation in Critically Ill Patients

Background

Sedation of intensive care patients is needed for patient safety, but deep sedation is associated with adverse outcomes. Frontal electromyogram-based Responsiveness Index (RI) aims to quantify the level of sedation and is scaled 0-100 (low index indicates deep sedation). We compared RI-based sedation to Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale- (RASS-) based sedation. Our hypothesis was that RI-controlled sedation would be associated with increased total time alive without mechanical ventilation at 30 days without an increased number of adverse events.

Methods

32 critically ill adult patients with mechanical ventilation and administration of sedation were randomized to either RI- or RASS-guided sedation. Patients received propofol and oxycodone, if possible. The following standardized sedation protocol was utilized in both groups to achieve the predetermined target sedation level: either RI 40-80 (RI group) or RASS -3 to 0 (RASS group). RI measurement was blinded in the RASS group, and the RI group was blinded to RASS assessments. State Entropy (SE) values were registered in both groups.

Results

RI and RASS groups did not differ in total time alive in 30 days without mechanical ventilation (p=0.72). The incidence of at least one sedation-related adverse event did not differ between the groups. Hypertension was more common in the RI group (p=0.01). RI group patients were in the target RI level 22% of the time and RASS group patients had 57% of scores within the target RASS level. The RI group spent significantly more time in their target sedation level than the RASS group spent in the corresponding RI level (p=0.03). No difference was observed between the groups (p=0.13) in the corresponding analysis for RASS. Propofol and oxycodone were administered at higher RI and SE values and lower RASS values in the RI group than in the RASS group.

Conclusion

Further studies with a larger sample size are warranted to scrutinize the optimal RI level during different phases of critical illness.

Caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours in the intensive care unit - A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient agitation is common in the intensive care unit (ICU), with consequences for both patients and health professionals if not managed effectively. Research indicates that current practices may not be optimal. A comprehensive review of the evidence exploring nurses' experiences of caring for these patients is required to fully understand how nurses can be supported to take on this important role.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to identify and synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence of nurses' experiences of caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours in the adult ICU.

METHODS

A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Emcare, Scopus, ProQuest, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to July 2020 for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies. Peer-reviewed, primary research articles and theses were considered for inclusion. A convergent integrated design, described by Joanna Briggs Institute, was utilised transforming all data into qualitative findings before categorising and synthesising to form the final integrated findings. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO CRD42020191715.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the review. Integrated findings include (i) the strain of caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours; (ii) attitudes of nurses; (iii) uncertainty around assessment and management of agitated behaviour; and (iv) lack of effective collaboration and communication with medical colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS

This review describes the challenges and complexities nurses experience when caring for patients displaying agitated behaviours in the ICU. Findings indicate that nurses lack guidelines together with practical and emotional support to fulfil their role. Such initiatives are likely to improve both patient and nurse outcomes.

A One-Day Prospective National Observational Study on Sedation-Analgesia of Patients with Brain Injury in French Intensive Care Units: The SEDA-BIP-ICU (Sedation-Analgesia in Brain Injury Patient in ICU) Study

BACKGROUND

Sedation/analgesia is a daily challenge faced by intensivists managing patients with brain injury (BI) in intensive care units (ICUs). The optimization of sedation in patients with BI presents particular challenges. A choice must be made between the potential benefit of a rapid clinical evaluation and the potential exacerbation of intracranial hypertension in patients with impaired cerebral compliance. In the ICU, a pragmatic approach to the use of sedation/analgesia, including the optimal titration, management of multiple drugs, and use of any type of brain monitor, is needed. Our research question was as follows: the aim of the study is to identify what is the current daily practice regarding sedation/analgesia in the management of patients with BI in the ICU in France?

METHODS

This study was composed of two parts. The first part was a descriptive survey of sedation practices and characteristics in 30 French ICUs and 27 academic hospitals specializing in care for patients with BI. This first step validates ICU participation in data collection regarding sedation-analgesia practices. The second part was a 1-day prospective cross-sectional snapshot of all characteristics and prescriptions of patients with BI.

RESULTS

On the study day, among the 246 patients with BI, 106 (43%) had a brain monitoring device and 74 patients (30%) were sedated. Thirty-nine of the sedated patients (53%) suffered from intracranial hypertension, 14 patients (19%) suffered from agitation and delirium, and 7 patients (9%) were sedated because of respiratory failure. Fourteen patients (19%) no longer had a formal indication for sedation. In 60% of the sedated patients, the sedatives were titrated by nurses based on sedation scales. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was used in 80% of the patients, and the Behavioral Pain Scale was used in 92%. The common sedatives and opioids used were midazolam (58.1%), propofol (40.5%), and sufentanil (67.5%). The cerebral monitoring devices available in the participating ICUs were transcranial Doppler ultrasound (100%), intracranial and intraventricular pressure monitoring (93.3%), and brain tissue oxygenation (60%). Cerebral monitoring by one or more monitoring devices was performed in 62% of the sedated patients. This proportion increased to 74% in the subgroup of patients with intracranial hypertension, with multimodal cerebral monitoring in 43.6%. The doses of midazolam and sufentanil were lower in sedated patients managed based on a sedation/analgesia scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam and sufentanil are frequently used, often in combination, in French ICUs instead of alternative drugs. In our study, cerebral monitoring was performed in more than 60% of the sedated patients, although that proportion is still insufficient. Future efforts should stress the use of multiple monitoring modes and adherence to the indications for sedation to improve care of patients with BI. Our study suggests that the use of sedation and analgesia scales by nurses involved in the management of patients with BI could decrease the dosages of midazolam and sufentanil administered. Updated guidelines are needed for the management of sedation/analgesia in patients with BI.

Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review illustrates literature over the last 5 years relating to sedation delivery to mechanically ventilated adult patients in intensive care units.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been an increase in dexmedetomidine-related publications but although systematic reviews suggest dexmedetomidine reduces delirium, agitation, and length of stay, clinical trials have not supported these findings. It is likely to be useful for the managing patients with persisting agitation. Guidelines continue to recommend lightly sedating patients but considerable variation remains in clinical practice and in research trials. Protocols with no sedative infusions and morphine boluses as needed are feasible and safe, while educational interventions can decrease sedation-related adverse events.

SUMMARY

Research trials have mainly focused on individual drugs rather than practice. Given evidence is slow to translate into practice; work is needed to understand and respond to the concerns of clinicians regarding deep sedation and agitation.

Rationale, Methodological Quality, and Reporting of Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trials in Critical Care Medicine: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Compared with individual-patient randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials have unique methodological and ethical considerations. We evaluated the rationale, methodological quality, and reporting of cluster randomized controlled trials in critical care studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register were performed.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all cluster randomized controlled trials conducted in adult, pediatric, or neonatal critical care units from January 2005 to September 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened citations, reviewed full texts, protocols, and supplements of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodology of included studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 1,902 citations, 59 cluster randomized controlled trials met criteria. Most focused on quality improvement (24, 41%), antimicrobial therapy (9, 15%), or infection control (9, 15%) interventions. Designs included parallel-group (25, 42%), crossover (21, 36%), and stepped-wedge (13, 22%). Concealment of allocation was reported in 21 studies (36%). Thirteen studies (22%) reported at least one method of blinding. The median total sample size was 1,660 patients (interquartile range, 813-4,295); the median number of clusters was 12 (interquartile range, 5-24); and the median patients per cluster was 141 (interquartile range, 54-452). Sample size calculations were reported in 90% of trials, but only 54% met Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance for sample size reporting. Twenty-seven of the studies (46%) identified a fixed number of available clusters prior to trial commencement, and only nine (15%) prespecified both the number of clusters and patients required to detect the expected effect size. Overall, 36 trials (68%) achieved the total prespecified sample size. When analyzing data, 44 studies (75%) appropriately adjusted for clustering when analyzing the primary outcome. Only 12 (20%) reported an intracluster coefficient (median 0.047 [interquartile range, 0.01-0.13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster randomized controlled trials in critical care typically involve a small and fixed number of relatively large clusters. The reporting of key methodological aspects of these trials is often inadequate.

Mental health impact of admission to the intensive care unit for COVID-19

The pandemic caused by Covid-19 has long term ramifications for many, especially those patients who have experienced an intensive care unit (ICU) admission including ventilation and sedation. This paper will explore aspects of care delivery in the ICU regarding the current pandemic and the impact of such on the mental health of some of these patients. Post discharge, patients will be returning to a very different community incorporating social distancing, and in some cases, social isolation and/or shielding. Many may experience a multitude of physical and mental health complications which can ultimately impact upon each other, therefore a bio-psycho-pharmaco-social approach to discharge, case management, risk assessment and positive behavioural support planning is recommended.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Challenges and barriers to optimising sedation in intensive care: a qualitative study in eight Scottish intensive care units

OBJECTIVES

Various strategies to promote light sedation are highly recommended in recent guidelines, as deep sedation is associated with suboptimum patient outcomes. Yet, the challenges met by clinicians in delivering high-quality analgosedation is rarely addressed. As part of the evaluation of a cluster-randomised quality improvement trial in eight Scottish intensive care units (ICUs), we aimed to understand the challenges to optimising sedation in the Scottish ICU settings prior to the trial. This article reports on the findings.

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory design: We conducted focus groups (FG) with clinicians during the preintervention period. Setting and participants: Eight Scottish ICUs. Nurses, physiotherapists and doctors working in each ICU volunteered to participate. FG were recorded and verbatim transcribed and inserted in NVivo V.10 for analysis. Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken to develop emergent themes from the patterns identified in relation to sedation practice. Ethical approval was secured by Scotland A Research ethics committee.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged from the inductive analysis: (a) a recent shift in sedation practice, (b) uncertainty in decision-making and (c) system-level factors including the ICU environment, organisational factors and educational gaps. Clinicians were challenged daily to manage agitated or difficult-to-sedate patients in the era of a progressive mantra of 'just sedate less' imposed by the pain-agitation-delirium guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The current implementation of guidelines does not support behaviour change strategies to allow a patient-focused approach to sedation management, which obstructs optimum sedation-analgesia management. Recognition of the various challenges when mandating less sedation needs to be considered and novel sedation-analgesia strategies should allow a system-level approach to improve sedation-analgesia quality.

DESIST REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01634451.

Qualitative descriptive study to explore nurses' perceptions and experience on pain, agitation and delirium management in a community intensive care unit

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences, beliefs and perceptions of intensive care unit (ICU) nurses on the management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

A qualitative descriptive study.

SETTING

This study took place in a community hospital ICU located in a medium size Canadian city.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposeful sampling was conducted. Participants included full-time nurses working in the ICU. Forty-six ICU nurses participated.

METHODS

A total of five focus group sessions were held to collect data. There were one to three separate groups in each focus group session, with no more than seven participants in each group. There were 10 separate groups in total. A semistructured question guide was used. Thematic analysis method was adopted to analyse the data, and to search for emergent themes and patterns.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged: (1) the professional perspectives on patient wakefulness state, (2) the professional perspectives on PAD management of critically ill patients and (3) the factors impacting PAD management. Nurses have different opinions on the optimal level of patient sedation and felt that many factors, including environmental, healthcare teams, patients and family members, can influence PAD management. This potentially leads to inconsistent PAD management in critically ill patients. The nurses also believed that PAD management requires a multidisciplinary approach including healthcare teams and patients' families.

CONCLUSIONS

Many external and internal factors contribute to the complexity of PAD management including the attitudes of nursing staff towards PAD. The themes emerged from this study suggested the need of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary quality improvement programme to optimise the management of PAD in the ICU.

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in a Canadian community intensive care unit: a quality improvement study protocol

BACKGROUND

Pain and agitation are closely linked to the development of delirium, which affects 60%-87% of critically ill patients. Delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Clinical guidelines that suggest routine assessment, treatment and prevention of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial to improving patient outcomes. However, the adoption of and adherence to PAD guidelines remain suboptimal, especially in community hospitals. The aim of this quality improvement study is to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD management in a Canadian community intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This is a quality improvement, uncontrolled, before-and-after study of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention targeting nurses (educational modules, visual reminders), family members (interviews, educational pamphlets and an educational video), physicians (multidisciplinary round script) and the multidisciplinary team as a whole (delirium poster). We will collect data every day for 6 weeks before implementing the intervention. Data collection will include clinical information and information on process of care. We will then implement the intervention. Four weeks after, we will collect data daily for 6 weeks to evaluate the effect of the intervention. On the basis of the volume of the ICU, we expect to enroll approximately 280 patients. We have obtained local ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB 18-040-C).

INTERPRETATION

The results of this quality improvement study will provide information on adherence to PAD guidelines in a Canadian community ICU setting. They will also supply information on the feasibility of implementing multifaceted and multidisciplinary PAD interventions in community ICUs.

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial

Background

ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation.

Methods

This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality.

Results

There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1–100), intravenous 94.4% (78–100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71–100) vs 83% (61–100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75–9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20–20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Although enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346. Registered on 25 March 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care adults and children

BACKGROUND

The sedation needs of critically ill patients have been recognized as a core component of critical care that is vital to assist recovery and ensure humane treatment. Evidence suggests that sedation requirements are not always optimally managed. Suboptimal sedation, both under- and over-sedation, have been linked to short-term (e.g. length of stay) and long-term (e.g. psychological recovery) outcomes. Strategies to improve sedation assessment and management have been proposed. This review was originally published in 2015 and updated in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management compared to usual care on the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and other patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated ICU adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group (ACE). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (December 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (2013 to December 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (2013 to December 2017), CINAHL (BIREME host) (2013 to December 2017), LILACS (2013 to December 2017), trial registries and reference lists of articles. (The original search was run in November 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials conducted in ICUs comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation in intensive care adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened the titles and abstracts and then full-text reports identified from our electronic search. We assessed seven domains of potential risk of bias for the included studies. We examined clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity and used the random-effects model for meta-analysis where we considered it appropriate. We calculated the mean difference (MD) for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio (RR) for mortality across studies, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 3323 participants (864 adults and 2459 paediatrics) in this update. Three studies were single-centre, patient-level RCTs and one study was a multicentre cluster-RCT. The settings were in metropolitan centres and included general, mixed medical-surgical, medical only and a range of paediatric units. All four included studies compared the use of protocol-directed sedation, specifically protocols delivered by nurses, with usual care. We rated the risk of selection bias due to random sequence generation low for two studies and unclear for two studies. The risk of bias was highly variable across the domains and studies, with the risk of selection and performance bias generally rated high and the risk of detection and attrition bias generally rated low.When comparing protocol-directed sedation with usual care, there was no clear evidence of difference in duration of mechanical ventilation in hours for the entire duration of the first ICU stay for each patient (MD -28.15 hours, 95% CI -69.15 to 12.84; I² = 85%; 4 studies; adjusted sample 2210 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in ICU mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 67%; 2 studies; 513 participants; low-quality evidence), or hospital mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13; I² = 10%; 3 studies; adjusted sample 2088 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in ICU length of stay (MD -1.70 days, 95% CI-3.71 to 0.31; I² = 82%; 4 studies; adjusted sample of 2123 participants; low-quality of evidence), however there was evidence of a significant reduction in hospital length of stay (MD -3.09 days, 95% CI -5.08 to -1.10; I² = 2%; 3 studies; adjusted sample of 1922 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in the incidence of self-extubation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; I² = 0%; 2 studies; adjusted sample of 1687 participants; high-quality evidence), or incidence of tracheostomy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30; I² = 66%; 3 studies; adjusted sample of 2008 participants; low-quality evidence). Only one study examined incidence of reintubation, therefore we could not pool data; there was no clear evidence of difference (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24; 1 study; 321 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently limited evidence from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation on patient outcomes. The four included RCTs reported conflicting results and heterogeneity limited the interpretation of results for the primary outcomes of duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. Further studies, taking into account differing contextual characteristics, are necessary to inform future practice. Methodological strategies to reduce the risk of bias need to be considered in future studies.

Pain, agitation and delirium assessment and management in a community medical-surgical ICU: results from a prospective observational study and nurse survey

Background

Delirium is a common manifestation in the intensive care unit (ICU) that is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Guidelines suggested appropriate management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial in improving patient outcomes. However, the practice of PAD assessment and management in community hospitals is unclear and the mechanisms contributing to the potential care gap are unknown.

Objectives

This quality improvement initiative aimed to review the practice of PAD assessment and management in a community medical-surgical ICU (MSICU) and to explore the community MSICU nurses’ perceived comfort and satisfaction with PAD management in order to understand the mechanisms of the observed care gap and to inform subsequent quality improvement interventions.

Methods

We prospectively collected basic demographic data, clinical information and daily data on PAD process measures including PAD assessment and target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ordered by intensivists on all patients admitted to a community MSICU for >24 hours over a 20-week period. All ICU nurses in the same community MSICU were invited to participate in an anonymous survey.

Results

We collected data on a total of 1101 patient-days (PD). 653 PD (59%), 861 PD (78%) and 439 PD (39%) had PAD assessment performed, respectively. Target RASS was ordered by the intensivists on 515 PD (47%). Our nurse survey revealed that 88%, 85% and 41% of nurses were comfortable with PAD assessment, respectively.

Conclusions

Delirium assessment was not routinely performed. This is partly explained by the discomfort nurses felt towards conducting delirium assessment. Our results suggested that improvement in nurse comfort with delirium assessment and management is needed in the community MSICU setting.