Clinicians' evaluation and management of mental health, substance abuse, and chronic pain conditions in the intensive care unit

Clinical impact of chronic substance abuse in a Norwegian ICU-population

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of chronic substance abuse of alcohol and drugs-referred to as substance use disorders (SUD)-is often overlooked in the intensive care (ICU) setting. The aims of the present study were to identify patients with SUD-regardless of cause of admission-in a mixed Norwegian ICU-population, and to compare patients with and without SUD with regard to clinical characteristics and mortality.

METHODS

Cross-sectional prospective study of a mixed medical and surgical ICU-population aged ≥18 years in Oslo, Norway. Data were collected consecutively, using a questionnaire including the AUDIT-C test, medical records and toxicology results. Patients classified with SUD were divided into the subgroups alcohol use disorders (AUD) and drug use disorders (DUD).

RESULTS

Overall, 222 (26%) of the 861 patients included were classified with SUD; 137 (16%) with AUD and 85 (10%) with DUD. 130/222 (59%) of the SUD-patients had substance abuse-related cause of ICU-admission. Compared to non-SUD patients, DUD-patients were younger (median age 42 vs 65 years) and had lower SAPS II scores (41 vs 46), while AUD-patients had higher SOFA scores (8.0 vs 7.3). Overall, age-adjusted logistic regression analysis showed similar hospital mortality for SUD-patients and non-SUD patients, but AUD was associated with increased mortality among medical patients and in patients with sepsis (OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.0-2.8), and OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.1-6.2)).

CONCLUSION

One in four ICU-patients had SUD regardless of cause of admission. Alcohol use disorder was associated with increased mortality in medical patients and in patients with sepsis.

Preoperative screening for illicit drug use in patients undergoing emergency surgery: A prospective observational study

Knowledge of illicit drug users (IDUs) is important because of the comorbidity related to drug use. In this prospective, observational study, we screened 1007 patients undergoing emergency surgery and found that 75 of them (7.5%) were IDUs The results of preoperative screening showed that the rates of HIV and syphilis infection were significantly higher in IDUs (HIV (+) 2.6%, syphilis (+) 10.7%) than in non-IDUs (HIV (+) 0, syphilis (+) 0.5%). Intraoperative consumption of remifentanil (IDUs: 1.85 ± 1.30 vs. non-IDUs: 1.31 ± 0.86, p = 0.009), midazolam (IDUs: 4.82 ± 1.52 vs. non-IDUs: 4.15 ± 1.81, p = 0.002), and atracurium (IDUs: 31.5 ± 15.1 vs. non-IDUs: 25.5 ± 11.9, p = 0.006) and the proportion of patients requiring postoperative fentanyl (IDUs: 15 (20.0%) vs. non-IDUs: 95 (1.2%), p = 0.031) were significantly increased in IDUs compared to non-IDUs. Postoperative complications were observed in 22.7% (17/75) of patients who were IDUs, which was significantly increased when compared with non-IDUs (6.0%, 56/932, p < 0.001). The mortality rate within 30 days after surgery was similar between the two groups. These findings suggested that the IDUs were associated with increased rates of HIV and syphilis infection; greater consumption of intraoperative opioids, sedatives, and muscle relaxants; increased postoperative complications and a similar mortality rate within 30 days after surgery when compared with non-IDUs.

Qualitative Secondary Analysis: A Case Exemplar

Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) is the use of qualitative data that was collected by someone else or was collected to answer a different research question. Secondary analysis of qualitative data provides an opportunity to maximize data utility, particularly with difficult-to-reach patient populations. However, qualitative secondary analysis methods require careful consideration and explicit description to best understand, contextualize, and evaluate the research results. In this article, we describe methodologic considerations using a case exemplar to illustrate challenges specific to qualitative secondary analysis and strategies to overcome them.

Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Critically Ill Patients: Identification, Assessment, and Management

Management of alcohol withdrawal in critically ill patients is a challenge. The alcohol consumption histories of intensive care patients are often incomplete, limiting identification of patients with alcohol use disorders. Abrupt cessation of alcohol places these patients at risk for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Typically benzodiazepines are used as first-line therapy to manage alcohol withdrawal. However, if patients progress to more severe withdrawal or delirium tremens, extra adjunctive medications in addition to benzodiazepines may be required. Sedation and mechanical ventilation may also be necessary. Withdrawal assessment scales such as the Clinical Institute of Withdrawal Assessment are of limited use in these patients. Instead, general sedation-agitation scales and delirium detection tools have been used. The important facets of care are the rapid identification of at-risk patients through histories of alcohol consumption, management with combination therapies, and ongoing diligent assessment and evaluation. (Critical Care Nurse. 2016;36[1]:28-39).

Do alcohol use disorders impact on long term outcomes from intensive care?

Introduction

There is limited evidence regarding the impact of alcohol use disorders on long term outcomes from intensive care. The aims of this study were to analyse the nature and complications of alcohol related admissions to intensive care and determine whether alcohol use disorders impact on survival at six months post ICU discharge.

Method

This was an 18 month prospective observational cohort study in a 20 bedded mixed ICU, in a large teaching hospital in Scotland. On admission patients were allocated to one of three alcohol groups: low risk, harmful/hazardous, or alcohol dependency.

Results

34.4% of patients were admitted with an alcohol use disorder. Those with an alcohol related admission (either harmful/hazardous or alcohol dependent) had an increased odds of developing septic shock during their admission, compared with the low risk group (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.13-2.47, p = 0.01). After adjustment for all lifestyle factors which were significantly different between the groups, alcohol dependence was associated with more than a twofold increased odds of ICU mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.2-4.69, p = 0.01) and hospital mortality (OR 2.43; 95% CI 1.28-4.621, p = 0.004). After adjustment for deprivation category and age, alcohol dependence was associated with an almost two fold increased odds of mortality at six months post ICU discharge (HR 1.86; CI 1.30-2.70, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Alcohol use disorders are a significant risk factor for the development of septic shock in intensive care. Further, alcohol dependency is independently associated with poorer long term outcomes from intensive care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0909-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of tracheostomy placement on anxiety in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine if self-reported anxiety levels decreased after tracheostomy placement in a sample of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND

There is limited research regarding the impact of a tracheostomy on patients' anxiety. Elevated anxiety delays healing and contributes to long-term mental health complications.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from a large clinical trial conducted in urban Minnesota. Fifty-one of 116 patients received a tracheostomy. Anxiety scores were obtained daily using the Visual Analog Scale-Anxiety. Mixed model analysis was used to compare anxiety ratings pre- and post-tracheostomy.

RESULTS

There was no significant decrease in anxiety following tracheostomy after controlling for time and gender (all p > .16). Age was the only variable to impact anxiety levels: anxiety scores increased as age increased (p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies are needed to more accurately assess the impact of tracheostomy placement on patient anxiety and salient outcomes.

Decreasing severe pain and serious adverse events while moving intensive care unit patients: a prospective interventional study (the NURSE-DO project)

INTRODUCTION

A quality-improvement project was conducted to reduce severe pain and stress-related events while moving ICU-patients.

METHODS

The Plan-Do-Check-Adjust cycle was studied during four one-month phases, separated by five-month interphases. All consecutive patients staying more than 24 hours were evaluated every morning while being moved for nursing care (bathing, massage, sheet-change, repositioning). Phase 1 was considered as the baseline. Implemented and adjusted quality-interventions were assessed at phases 2 and 3, respectively. An independent post-intervention control-audit was performed at Phase 4. Primary-endpoints were the incidence of severe pain defined by a behavioral pain scale > 5 or a 0 to 10 visual numeric rating scale > 6, and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAE): cardiac arrest, arrhythmias, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, hypotension, desaturation, bradypnea or ventilatory distress. Pain, SAE, patients' characteristics and analgesia were compared among the phases by a multivariate mixed-effects model for repeated-measurements, adjusted on severity index, age, admission type (medical/surgical), intubation and sedation status.

RESULTS

During the four studied phases, 630 care procedures were analyzed in 53, 47, 43 and 50 patients, respectively. Incidence of severe pain decreased significantly from 16% (baseline) to 6% in Phase 3 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.33 (0.11; 0.98), P = 0.04) and 2% in Phase 4 (OR = 0.30 (0.12; 0.95), P = 0.02). Incidence of SAE decreased significantly from 37% (baseline) to 17% in Phase 3 and 21% in Phase 4. In multivariate analysis, SAE were independently associated with Phase 3 (OR = 0.40 (0.23; 0.72), P < 0.01), Phase 4 (OR = 0.53 (0.30; 0.92), P = 0.03), intubation status (OR = 1.91 (1.28; 2.85), P < 0.01) and severe pain (OR = 2.74 (1.54; 4.89), P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe pain and serious adverse events are common and strongly associated while moving ICU patients for nursing procedures. Quality improvement of pain management is associated with a decrease of serious adverse events. Careful documentation of pain management during mobilization for nursing procedures could be implemented as a health quality indicator in the ICU.

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary.

Assessment and management of alcohol-related admissions to UK intensive care units

BACKGROUND

The critical care environment has felt the overwhelming impact of the growing problem of alcohol abuse. However, there is ambiguity concerning the assessment and management of this patient group.

AIM

The aim of this study was to explore current practice in the use of assessment and management tools for alcohol-related admissions in UK intensive care units (ICU).

METHODS

Two hundred and forty-eight lead consultants across England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were sent an electronic survey using the SurveyMonkey(®) ( www.surveymonkey.com) website.

RESULTS

A total of 103 (41·05%) lead consultants responded to the survey. Most units (67%) utilized the volume of alcohol consumed per week to assess patient alcohol use. Furthermore, 12 units (11%) used the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment tool, 5 units (5%) used the Glasgow Modified Alcohol Withdrawal Scale and 79 units (73%) used no tool for the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be a diverse approach to the assessment and management of alcohol-related admissions in UK ICUs. Further research is required in this area to identify the most effective way to assess and manage alcohol-related admissions within intensive care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Under recognition and poor assessment of alcohol use can have major implications for critically ill patients.

Anxiety and agitation in mechanically ventilated patients

During an ethnography conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU), we found that anxiety and agitation occurred frequently and were important considerations in the care of 30 patients weaning from prolonged mechanical ventilation. We conducted a secondary analysis to (a) describe characteristics of anxiety and agitation experienced by mechanically ventilated patients, (b) explore how clinicians recognized and interpreted anxiety and agitation, and (c) describe strategies and interventions used to manage anxiety and agitation with mechanically ventilated patients. We constructed the Anxiety/Agitation in Mechanical Ventilation Model to illustrate the multidimensional features of symptom recognition and management. Patients' ability to interact with the environment served as a basis for identification and management of anxiety or agitation. Clinicians' attributions about anxiety or agitation, and "knowing the patient," contributed to their assessment of patient responses. Clinicians chose strategies to overcome either the stimulus or the patient's appraisal of risk of the stimulus. This article contributes to the body of knowledge about symptom recognition and management in the ICU by providing a comprehensive model to guide future research and practice.

Psychological variables potentially implicated in opioid-related mortality as observed in clinical practice

Opioid-related deaths in the United States have become a public health problem, with accidental and unintended overdoses being especially troubling. Screening for psychological risk factors is an important first step in safeguarding against nonadherence practices and identifying patients who may be vulnerable to the risks associated with opioid therapy. Validated screening instruments can aid in this attempt as a complementary tool to clinicians' assessments. A structured screening is imperative as part of an assessment, as clinician judgment is not the most reliable method of identifying nonadherence. As a complement to formal screening, we present for discussion and possible future study certain psychological variables observed during years of clinical practice that may be linked to medication nonadherence and accidental overdose. These variables include catastrophizing, fear, impulsivity, attention deficit disorders, existential distress, and certain personality disorders. In our experience, chronic pain patients with dual diagnoses may become "chemical copers" as a way of coping with their negative emotion. For these patients, times of stress could lead to accidental overdose. Behavioral, cognitive-behavioral (acceptance and commitment, dialectical behavior), existential (meaning-centered, dignity), and psychotropic therapies have been effective in treating these high-risk comorbidities, while managing expectations of pain relief appears key to preventing accidental overdose.

Acute Pain Management in Opioid-Tolerant Patients: A Growing Challenge

In Australia and New Zealand, in parallel with other developed countries, the number of patients prescribed opioids on a long-term basis has grown rapidly over the last decade. The burden of chronic pain is more widely recognised and there has been an increase in the use of opioids for both cancer and non-cancer indications. While the prevalence of illicit opioid use has remained relatively stable, the diversion and abuse of prescription opioids has escalated, as has the number of individuals receiving methadone or buprenorphine pharmacotherapy for opioid addiction. As a result, the proportion of opioid-tolerant patients requiring acute pain management has increased, often presenting clinicians with greater challenges than those faced when treating the opioid-naïve.

Treatment aims include effective relief of acute pain, prevention of drug withdrawal, assistance with any related social, psychiatric and behavioural issues, and ensuring continuity of long-term care. Pharmacological approaches incorporate the continuation of usual medications (or equivalent), short-term use of sometimes much higher than average doses of additional opioid, and prescription of non-opioid and adjuvant drugs, aiming to improve pain relief and attenuate opioid tolerance and/or opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Discharge planning should commence at an early stage and may involve the use of a ‘Reverse Pain Ladder’ aiming to limit duration of additional opioid use. Legislative requirements may restrict which drugs can be prescribed at the time of hospital discharge. At all stages, there should be appropriate and regular consultation and liaison with the patient, other treating teams and specialist services.

Alcohol-use disorders in the critically ill patient

Alcohol abuse and dependence, referred to as alcohol-use disorders (AUDs), affect 76.3 million people worldwide and account for 1.8 million deaths per year. AUDs affect 18.3 million Americans (7.3% of the population), and up to 40% of hospitalized patients have AUDs. This review discusses the development and progression of critical illness in patients with AUDs. In contrast to acute intoxication, AUDs have been linked to increased severity of illness in a number of studies. In particular, surgical patients with AUDs experience higher rates of postoperative hemorrhage, cardiac complications, sepsis, and need for repeat surgery. Outcomes from trauma are worse for patients with chronic alcohol abuse, whereas burn patients who are acutely intoxicated may not have worse outcomes. AUDs are linked to not only a higher likelihood of community-acquired pneumonia and sepsis but also a higher severity of illness and higher rates of nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis. The management of sedation in patients with AUDs may be particularly challenging because of the increased need for sedatives and opioids and the difficulty in diagnosing withdrawal syndrome. The health-care provider also must be watchful for the development of dangerous agitation and violence, as these problems are not uncommonly seen in hospital ICUs. Despite studies showing that up to 40% of hospitalized patients have AUDs, relatively few guidelines exist on the specific management of the critically ill patient with AUDs. AUDs are underdiagnosed, and a first step to improving patient outcomes may lie in systematically and accurately identifying AUDs.

Development of a substance abuse consultation and referral service in an academic medical center: challenges, achievements and dissemination

Approximately 25% of US hospital beds are occupied by individuals with active substance use disorders (SUD). Acute medical hospitalization provides an opportunity to address SUDs and provide patient-centered intervention and referral for treatment. Nationally, some hospitals have developed substance abuse consultation departments to improve the care of hospitalized substance users. In this paper we describe the Addiction Psychiatry Service (APS) in a large urban hospital which provides bed-side SUD consultation, screening, intervention and referral to treatment. APS utilizes the multiple disciplines of psychology, social work and medicine to integrate substance abuse services throughout the hospital and educate future generations of medical and psychology trainees. We conclude with how the APS service is informing the development of similar programs in other academic departments within our hospital and best practice recommendations to further disseminate this service model.