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

Pain management interventions of the non-communicating patient in intensive care: What works for whom and why? A rapid realist review

AIM

The utility and uptake of pain management interventions across intensive care settings is inconsistent. A rapid realist review was conducted to synthesise the evidence for the purpose of theory building and refinement.

DESIGN

A five-step iterative process was employed to develop project scope/ research questions, collate evidence, appraise literature, synthesise evidence and interpret information from data sources.

METHODS

Realist synthesis method was employed to systematically review literature for developing a programme theory.

DATA SOURCES

Initial searches were undertaken in three electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINHAL and OVID. The review was supplemented with key articles from bibliographic search of identified articles. The first 200 hits from Google Scholar were screened.

RESULTS

Three action-oriented themes emerged as integral to successful implementation of pain management interventions. These included health facility actions, unit/team leader actions and individual nurses' actions.

CONCLUSION

Pain assessment interventions are influenced by a constellation of factors which trigger mechanisms yielding effective implementation outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

The results have implications on policy makers, health organisations, nursing teams and nurses concerned with optimising the successful implementation of pain management interventions.

IMPACT

The review enabled formation of a programme theory concerned with explaining how to effectively implement pain management interventions in intensive care.

REPORTING METHOD

This review was informed by RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution. The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. 10.17605/OSF.IO/J7AEZ.

Appropriateness of behavioural scales in the monitoring of pain in the critically ill patient unable to self-report

Appropriateness is a dimension of quality that evaluates the effective use of technologies, resources or interventions in specific situations or populations, assessing whether our interventions do more benefit than harm. The evidence regarding pain monitoring in the critically ill patient points to the periodic assessment of pain using appropriate tools, with the aim of improving pain management and more efficient use of analgesics in the intensive care unit. The first step would be to assess the patient's ability to communicate or self-report and, based on this, to select the most appropriate pain assessment tool. In patients who are unable to self-report, behavioural pain assessment tools are recommended. When we talk about the suitability of behavioural scales for pain monitoring in critically ill patients unable to self-report, we refer to their use with a clear clinical benefit, i.e. using the right tool for pain assessment to be effective, efficient and consistent with bioethical principles. To our knowledge, there are no published data on the suitability of pain assessment tools in unable to self-report critically ill patients, so, in the framework of continuous quality improvement in pain care, new research should incorporate this approach by integrating the best scientific evidence with current clinical practice.

Current Practice and Barriers to the Implementation of Mobilization in ICUs in Japan: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

Background: Limited information is currently available on the barriers to implementing mobilization at the bedside for critically ill patients. Therefore, we investigated the current practice of and barriers to the implementation of mobilization in intensive care units (ICU). Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted at nine hospitals between June 2019 and December 2019. Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU for more than 48 h were enrolled. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Results: The 203 patients enrolled in the present study were divided into 69 elective surgical patients and 134 unplanned admission patients. The mean periods of time until the initiation of rehabilitation programs after ICU admission were 2.9 ± 7.7 and 1.7 ± 2.0 days, respectively. Median ICU mobility scales were five (Interquartile range: three and eight) and six (Interquartile range: three and nine), respectively. The most common barriers to mobilization in the ICU were circulatory instability (29.9%) and a physician's order for postoperative bed rest (23.4%) in the unplanned admission and elective surgery groups, respectively. Conclusions: Rehabilitation programs were initiated later for unplanned admission patients and were less intense than those for elective surgical patients, irrespective of the time after ICU admission.

Incidence, characteristics and risk factors of delirium in the intensive care unit: An observational study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence, characteristics and risk factors of delirium in the ICU.

BACKGROUND

Identifying the risk factors of delirium is important for early detection and to prevent adverse consequences.

DESIGN

An observational cohort study conducted according to STROBE Guidelines.

METHOD

The study was conducted with patients who stayed in ICU ≥24 h and were older than 18 years. Patients were assessed twice daily using the RASS and CAM-ICU until either discharge or death. Cumulative incidence was calculated. Demographic/clinical characteristics, length of stay and mortality were compared between patients with and without delirium. A logistic regression model was used to investigate risk factors.

RESULTS

The incidence of delirium was 31.8% and hypoactive type was the most frequent (41.5%). The median onset of delirium was 3 days (IQR = 2) with a mean duration of 5.27 ± 2.32 days. Patients with delirium were significantly older, had higher APACHE-II, SOFA and CPOT scores, higher blood urea levels, higher requirements for mechanical ventilation, sedation and physical restraints, longer stays in the ICU and higher mortality than those without delirium. The logistic regression analysis results revealed that a CPOT score ≥3 points (OR = 4.70, 95% CI: 1.05-20.93; p = .042), physical restraint (OR = 10.40, 95% CI: 2.75-39.27; p = .001) and ICU stay ≥7 days (OR = 7.26, 95% CI: 1.60-32.84; p = .010) were independent risk factors of delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the incidence of delirium was high and associated with several factors. It is critical that delirium is considered by all members of the healthcare team, especially nurses, and that protocols are established for improvements.

RELEVANCE TO THE CLINICAL PRACTICE

Based on the results of this study, delirium could be decreased by preventing the presence of pain, prudent use of physical restraints and shortening the ICU stay.

Discomfort improvement for critically ill patients using electronic relaxation devices: results of the cross-over randomized controlled trial E-CHOISIR (Electronic-CHOIce of a System for Intensive care Relaxation)

Purpose

To assess the impact of different electronic relaxation devices on common stressful patient symptoms experienced in intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Sixty critically ill patients were enrolled in four relaxation sessions using a randomized cross-over design: standard relaxation (TV/radio), music therapy (MUSIC-CARE©), and two virtual reality systems using either real motion pictures (DEEPSEN©) or synthetic motion pictures (HEALTHY-MIND©). The goal was to determine which device was the best to reduce overall patient discomfort intensity (0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were specific stressful symptoms (pain, anxiety, dyspnea, thirst, and lack of rest feeling) and stress response measured by Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI). Multivariate mixed-effect analysis was used, taking into account patient characteristics and multiple measurements.

Results

Fifty patients followed the full research protocol, and ten patients did at least one research planned session of relaxation. HEALTHY-MIND© was associated with a significant decrease in overall discomfort, the primary endpoint (median NRS = 4[2–6] vs. 2[0–5]; p = 0.01, mixed-effect model), accompanied by a significant decrease in stress response (increase in ANI, secondary endpoint; p < 0.01). Regarding other secondary endpoints, each of the two virtual reality systems was associated with a decrease in anxiety (p < 0.01), while HEALTHY-MIND© was associated also with a decrease in pain (p = 0.001) and DEEPSEN© with a decrease in lack of rest (p = 0.01). Three incidents (claustrophobia/dyspnea/agitation) were reported among 109 virtual reality sessions. Cybersickness was rare (NRS = 0[0–0]).

Conclusion

Electronic relaxation therapy is a promising, safe, and effective non-pharmacological solution that can be used to improve overall discomfort in alert and non-delirious ICU patients. Its effectiveness depends on technical characteristics (virtual reality using a synthetic imagined world versus a real world or music therapy alone without virtual reality), as well as the type of symptoms.

Electronic relaxation therapies are effective supportive care tools for improving stressful symptoms in ICU patients.

Effectiveness depends on the type of symptom and the characteristics of the devices.

Overall discomfort and adrenergic stress response are more significantly improved by virtual reality using a synthetic imagined world than using a real world or music therapy alone.

Management of procedural pain in the intensive care unit

Pain is a common experience for inpatients, and intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo more pain than other departmental patients, with an incidence of 50% at rest and up to 80% during common care procedures. At present, the management of persistent pain in ICU patients has attracted considerable attention, and there are many related clinical studies and guidelines. However, the management of transient pain caused by certain ICU procedures has not received sufficient attention. We reviewed the different management strategies for procedural pain in the ICU and reached a conclusion. Pain management is a process of continuous quality improvement that requires multidisciplinary team cooperation, pain-related training of all relevant personnel, effective relief of all kinds of pain, and improvement of patients' quality of life. In clinical work, which involves complex and diverse patients, we should pay attention to the following points for procedural pain: (1) Consider not only the patient's persistent pain but also his or her procedural pain; (2) Conduct multimodal pain management; (3) Provide combined sedation on the basis of pain management; and (4) Perform individualized pain management. Until now, the pain management of procedural pain in the ICU has not attracted extensive attention. Therefore, we expect additional studies to solve the existing problems of procedural pain management in the ICU.

Pain Control and Opioid Use in ICU should be a Quality Parameter

How to cite this article: Garg SK, Garg P. Pain Control and Opioid Use in ICU should be a Quality Parameter. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021; 25(10):1205–1206.

Pain Action Unit Detection in Critically Ill Patients

Existing pain assessment methods in the intensive care unit rely on patient self-report or visual observation by nurses. Patient self-report is subjective and can suffer from poor recall. In the case of non-verbal patients, behavioral pain assessment methods provide limited granularity, are subjective, and put additional burden on already overworked staff. Previous studies have shown the feasibility of autonomous pain expression assessment by detecting Facial Action Units (AUs). However, previous approaches for detecting facial pain AUs are historically limited to controlled environments. In this study, for the first time, we collected and annotated a pain-related AU dataset, Pain-ICU, containing 55,085 images from critically ill adult patients. We evaluated the performance of OpenFace, an open-source facial behavior analysis tool, and the trained AU R-CNN model on our Pain-ICU dataset. Variables such as assisted breathing devices, environmental lighting, and patient orientation with respect to the camera make AU detection harder than with controlled settings. Although OpenFace has shown state-of-the-art results in general purpose AU detection tasks, it could not accurately detect AUs in our Pain-ICU dataset (F1-score 0.42). To address this problem, we trained the AU R-CNN model on our Pain-ICU dataset, resulting in a satisfactory average F1-score 0.77. In this study, we show the feasibility of detecting facial pain AUs in uncontrolled ICU settings.

Pain assessment of the adult sedated and ventilated patients in the intensive care setting: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pain is frequently encountered in the intensive care setting. Given the impact of pain assessment on patient outcomes and length of hospital stay, studies have been conducted to validate tools, establish guidelines and cast light on practices relating to pain assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of the evidence around pain assessment practices in adult patients who cannot self-report pain in the intensive care setting and summarise the findings from a heterogenous body of evidence to aid in the planning and the conduct of future research and management of patient care. The specific patient cohort studied was the sedated/ ventilated patient within the intensive care setting.

DESIGN

A scoping review protocol utilised the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping review checklist (PRISMA-ScR).

METHODS

The review comprised of five phases: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Databases were systematically searched from January to April 2020. Databases included were Scopus, Web of Science, Medline via Ovid, CINAHL COMPLETE via EBSCO host, Health Source and PUBMED. Limits were applied on dates (2000 to current), language (English), subject (human) and age (adult). Key words used were "pain", "assessment", "measurement", "tools", "instruments", "practices", "sedated", "ventilated", "adult". A hand search technique was used to search citations within articles. Database alerts were set to apprise the availability of research articles pertaining to pain assessment practices in the intensive care setting.

RESULTS

The review uncovered literature categorised under five general themes: behaviour pain assessment tools, pain assessment guidelines, position statements and quality improvement projects, enablers and barriers to pain assessment, and evidence appertaining to actual practices. Behaviour pain assessment tools are the benchmark for pain assessment of sedated and ventilated patients. The reliability and validity of physiologic parameters to assess pain is yet to be determined. Issues of compliance with pain assessment guidelines and tools exist and impact on practices. In some countries like Australia, there is a dearth of information regarding the prevalence and characteristics of patients receiving analgesia, type of analgesia used, pain assessment practices and the process of recording pain management. In general, pain assessment varies across different intensive care settings and lacks consistency.

CONCLUSION

Research on pain assessment practices requires further investigation to explore the causative mechanisms that contribute to poor compliance with established pain management guidelines. The protocol of this review was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/25a6) Tweetable abstract: Pain assessment in intensive care settings lacks consistency. New information is needed to understand the causative mechanisms underpinning poor compliance with guidelines.

Adverse Events in Intensive Care and Continuing Care Units During Bed-Bath Procedures: The Prospective Observational NURSIng during critical carE (NURSIE) Study

OBJECTIVES

Standard nursing interventions, especially bed-baths, in ICUs can lead to complications or adverse events defined as a physiologic change that can be life-threatening or that prolongs hospitalization. However, the frequency and type of these adverse events are rarely reported in the literature. The primary objective of our study was to describe the proportion of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event during bed-bath. The secondary objectives were to determine the incidence of each type of serious adverse event and identify risk factors for these serious adverse events.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter observational study.

SETTING

Twenty-four ICUs in France, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

PATIENTS

The patients included in this study had been admitted to an ICU for less than 72 hours and required at least one of the following treatments: invasive ventilation, vasopressors, noninvasive ventilation, high-flow oxygen therapy. Serious adverse events were defined as cardiac arrest, accidental extubation, desaturation and/or mucus plugging/inhalation, hypotension and/or arrhythmia and/or agitation requiring therapeutic intervention, acute pain, accidental disconnection or dysfunction of equipment, and patient fall requiring additional assistance.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The study included 253 patients from May 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018 in 24 ICUs, representing 1,529 nursing procedures. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 54 ± 19. Nursing care was administered by an average of 2 ± 1 caregivers and lasted between 11 and 20 minutes. Of the 253 patients included, 142 (56%) experienced at least one serious adverse event. Of the 1,529 nursing procedures, 295 (19%) were complicated by at least one serious adverse event. In multivariate analysis, the factors associated with serious adverse event were as follows: presence of a specific protocol (p = 0.011); tracheostomy (p = 0.032); administration of opioids (p = 0.007); presence of a physician (p = 0.0004); duration of nursing care between 6 and 10 minutes (p = 0.003), duration of nursing care between 11 and 20 minutes (p = 0.005), duration of nursing care greater than 40 minutes (p = 0.04) with a reference duration of nursing care between 20 and 40 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Serious adverse events were observed in one-half of patients and concerned one-fifth of nurses, confirming the need for caution. Further studies are needed to test systematic serious adverse event prevention strategies.

Semi-automated tracking of pain in critical care patients using artificial intelligence: a retrospective observational study

Monitoring the pain intensity in critically ill patients is crucial because intense pain can cause adverse events, including poor survival rates; however, continuous pain evaluation is difficult. Vital signs have traditionally been considered ineffective in pain assessment; nevertheless, the use of machine learning may automate pain assessment using vital signs. This retrospective observational study was performed at a university hospital in Sendai, Japan. Objective pain assessments were performed in eligible patients using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). Three machine-learning methods—random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression (LR)—were employed to predict pain using parameters, such as vital signs, age group, and sedation levels. Prediction accuracy was calculated as the harmonic mean of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Furthermore, 117,190 CPOT assessments were performed in 11,507 eligible patients (median age: 65 years; 58.0% males). We found that pain prediction was possible with all three machine-learning methods. RF demonstrated the highest AUROC for the test data (RF: 0.853, SVM: 0.823, and LR: 0.787). With this method, pain can be objectively, continuously, and semi-automatically evaluated in critically ill patients.

Nurses' use of non-pharmacological pain management methods in intensive care units: A descriptive cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common and unpleasant feeling among patients in intensive care units. Therefore, the use of proper pain management methods, such as non-pharmacological interventions, is a priority in intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain the extent of the use of non-pharmacological pain management methods by intensive care unit nurses in Iran and to identify the obstacles that hindered the use of these methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study used a descriptive cross-sectional design which involved a convenience sample of 224 nurses who worked in 16 intensive care units across northern Iran. Data were collected using the non-pharmacological pain management questionnaire and a researcher-developed checklist of the obstacles that hindered the use of non-pharmacological pain management methods.

RESULTS

A moderate number of ICU nurses used non-pharmacological pain management methods (55.8 %). The most common method used by nurses was repositioning (M = 2.72), while methods such as acupuncture and reflexology were used less frequently. Furthermore, the most common obstacles to the use of non-pharmacological pain management methods were nurses' fatigue (M = 2.92) and multiple responsibilities (M = 2.91). Demographic variables such as age, gender, educational level, and work experience were not significantly associated with the use of non-pharmacological pain management methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to factors such as fatigue, multiple responsibilities, a heavy workload, and an insufficient number of nurses per shift, the rate of utilization of non-pharmacological pain management methods among intensive care unit nurses in Iran was low. Furthermore, most of the participants in this study had not attended courses on non-pharmacological pain management.

Consensus Statement on Analgo-sedation in Neurocritical Care and Review of Literature

Aim and objective

Our main objective in developing this consensus is to bring together a set of most agreed-upon statements from a panel of global experts that would act as a guide for clinicians working in neurocritical care units (NCCUs).

Background

Given the physiological benefits of analgo-sedation in the NCCU, there is little information on their tailoring in the NCCU. This lack of evidence and guidelines on the use of sedation and analgesia in patients with neurological injury leads to a variation in clinical care based on patient requirements and institutional protocols.

Review results

Thirty-nine international experts agreed to be a member of this consensus panel. A Delphi method based on a Web-based questionnaire developed with Google Forms on a secure institute server was used to seek opinions of experts. Questions were related to sedation and analgesia in the neurocritical care unit. A predefined threshold of agreement was established as 70% to support any recommendation, strong, moderate, or weak. No recommendations were made below this threshold. Responses were collected from all the experts, summated, and expressed as percentage (%). After three rounds, consensus could be reached for 6 statements related to analgesia and 5 statements related to sedation. Consensus could not be reached for 10 statements related to analgesia and 5 statements related to sedation.

Conclusion

This global consensus statement may help in guiding practitioners in clinical decision-making regarding analgo-sedation in the NCCUs, thereby helping in improving patient recovery profiles.

Clinical significance

In the lack of high-level evidence, the recommendations may be seen as the current best clinical practice.

How to cite this article

Prabhakar H, Tripathy S, Gupta N, Singhal V, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, et al. Consensus Statement on Analgo-sedation in Neurocritical Care and Review of Literature. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(2):126–133.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been widely used to assess pain in ICU patients, and its validity and reliability have been tested in various contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CPOT in critically ill patients, a systematic review of diagnostic studies was performed.

METHODS

A database search (PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, COVIP, CBM) was conducted, as was the manual identification of eligible papers from citations. Eligible studies were published between 2006 and February 2020. Quality appraisal of the studies was carried out with the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction was performed in alignment with STARD 2015. Open Meta Analyst was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 25 articles involving 1920 subjects with 3493 experimental results were included. Most of the studies were of fair quality. A high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 57.2%, P < 0.001) was discovered. The Youden index values were 1.56 and 1.55 when the CPOT threshold was set at two and three, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CPOT was affected by the reference standard. The CPOT had a higher diagnostic odds ratio of 11.52 (95% CI: 7.42-17.87) during nociceptive procedures compared with 9.14 (95% CI: 5.38-15.53) at rest or during non-nociceptive procedures.

CONCLUSION

CPOT has moderate diagnostic parameters with a threshold of two or three, suggesting that it is a fair but not excellent tool. More research on the validity of the CPOT in specific subgroups is needed to broaden its applicability in critical care.

Assessing pain in critically ill brain-injured patients: a psychometric comparison of 3 pain scales and videopupillometry

Three clinical scales (the Nociception Coma Scale adapted for Intubated patients [NCS-I], its Revised version [NCS-R-I], and the Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and videopupillometry were compared for measuring pain in intubated, noncommunicating, critically ill, brain-injured patients. Pain assessment was performed before, during, just after, and 5 minutes after 3 procedures: the reference non-nociceptive procedure (assessment of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and 2 nociceptive procedures (turning and tracheal suctioning). The primary endpoint was construct validity (discriminant and criterion validation), determined by comparing pain measurements between different times/procedures. Secondary endpoints were internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and feasibility. Fifty patients (54% women, median age 63 years [56-68]) were included 13 [7-24] days after brain injury (76% hemorrhagic or ischemic strokes). All tools increased significantly more (P < 0.001) during the nociceptive procedures vs the non-nociceptive procedure. The BPS was the only pain tool that did not increase significantly during the non-nociceptive procedure (P = 0.41), suggesting that it was the most discriminant tool. The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I were good predictors of nociception with areas under the curves ≥0.96, contrary to videopupillometry (area under the curve = 0.67). The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-I-R had high inter-rater reliabilities (weighted kappa = 0.86, 0.82 and 0.84, respectively). Internal consistency was moderate (>0.60) for all pain scales. Factor analysis represented a majority of information on a first dimension, with motor domains represented on a second dimension. Scale feasibility was better for the NCS-I and NCS-R-I than for the BPS. In conclusion, the BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I are valid, reliable, and acceptable pain scales for use in intubated critically ill, brain-injured patients, unlike videopupillometry. Future research requires tool design centered on domains of observation adapted to this very specific population.

Automated vs. conventional ventilation in the ICU: a randomized controlled crossover trial comparing blood oxygen saturation during daily nursing procedures (I-NURSING)

Background

Hypoxia is common during daily nursing procedures (DNPs) routinely performed on mechanically ventilated patients. The impact of automated ventilation on the incidence and severity of blood oxygen desaturation during DNPs remains unknown.

Methods

A prospective randomized controlled crossover trial was carried out in a French intensive care unit to compare blood oxygen pulse saturation (SpO₂) during DNPs performed on patients mechanically ventilated in automated and conventional ventilation modes (AV and CV, respectively). All patients with FiO₂ ≤ 60% and without prone positioning or neuromuscular blocking agents were included. Patients underwent two DNPs on the same day using AV (INTELLiVENT-ASV®) and CV (volume control, biphasic positive airway pressure, or pressure support ventilation) in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the percentage of time spent with SpO₂ in the acceptable range of 90–95% during the DNP.

Results

Of the 265 included patients, 93% had been admitted for a medical pathology, the majority for acute respiratory failure (52%). There was no difference between the two periods in terms of DNP duration, sedation requirements, or ventilation parameters, but patients had more spontaneous breaths and lower peak airway pressures during the AV period (p <  0.001). The percentage of time spent with SpO₂ in the acceptable range during DNPs was longer in the AV period than in the CV period (48 ± 37 vs. 43 ± 37, percentage of DNP period; p = 0.03). After adjustment, AV was associated with a higher number of DNPs carried out with SpO₂ in the acceptable range (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.6; p = 0.001) and a lower incidence of blood oxygen desaturation ≤ 85% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.85; p = 0.01).

Conclusion

AV appears to reduce the incidence and severity of blood oxygen desaturation during daily nursing procedures (DNPs) in comparison to CV.

Trial registration

This study was registered in clinical-trial.gov (NCT03176329) in June 2017.

Graphical abstract

Role of Family Members in Pain Management in Adult Critical Care

This review describes family member involvement in intensive care unit pain assessment and management and generates implications for clinical practice, education, and future research. A literature review was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases from their inception until April 30, 2019. Only 11 studies addressing the topic were identified, and the current quality of evidence is low. Family members can be involved in pain assessment by describing patients' pain behaviors and in pain management by selecting and delivering nonpharmacological interventions tailored to patients' needs, if the family members feel comfortable with this role. More-rigorous research is required to describe the role of family members in patients' pain assessment and management. Advancing knowledge in this field could improve patients' and family members' experiences with pain assessment and management in the intensive care unit.

A Psychometric Analysis Update of Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools for Noncommunicative, Critically Ill Adults

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Severe pain-related adverse events of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy performed by a neurointensivist compared with conventional surgical tracheostomy in neurocritically ill patients

Background

We evaluated severe pain-related adverse events (SAE) during the percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) procedure performed by a neurointensivist and compared the outcomes with that of conventional surgical tracheostomy in neurocritically ill patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective and observational study of adult patients who were admitted to the neurosurgical intensive care unit between January 2014 and March 2018 and underwent tracheostomy. In this study, primary endpoints were incidence of SAE: cardiac arrest, arrhythmias, hypertension, hypotension, desaturation, bradypnea, or ventilatory distress. The secondary endpoint was procedure-induced complications.

Results

A total of 156 patients underwent tracheostomy during the study. Elective surgery of brain tumors (34.0%) and intracranial hemorrhage (20.5%) were the most common reasons for admission. The most common reasons for tracheostomy were difficult ventilator weaning or prolonged intubation (42.9%) and sedative reduction (23.7%). Tachycardia (30.1%) and hypertension (30.1%) were the most common SAE. Incidence of SAE was more common in conventional tracheostomy compared to PDT (67.1% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.002). The total duration of SAE (19.8 ± 23.0 min vs. 3.4 ± 5.3 min, P < 0.001) and procedural time (42.2 ± 21.8 min vs. 17.7 ± 9.2 min, P < 0.001) were longer in conventional tracheostomy compared to PDT. Multivariable adjustment revealed that only PDT by a neurointensivist significantly reduced the incidence of SAE by one third (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.187–0.691). In addition, PDT by a neurointensivist deceased the duration of SAE by 8.64 min (β: -8.64, 95% CI: − 15.070 – -2.205, P = 0.009) and prolonging the procedure time by every one minute significantly increased the duration of SAE by 6.38 min (β: 6.38, 95% CI: 0.166–0.470, P < 0.001). Procedure-induced complications were more common in conventional tracheostomy compared to PDT (23.5% vs. 11.3%, P = 0.047).

Conclusions

This retrospective and exploratory study of our single-center limited cohort of tracheostomy patients revealed that decreased SAE may be associated with short procedural time during the PDT procedure performed by a neurointensivist. It is proposed that PDT by a neurointensivist may be safe and feasible in neurocritically ill patients.

Adverse events during nursing care procedure in intensive care unit: The PREVENIR study

OBJECTIVES

Intensive care unit patients undergo several nursing care procedures (NCP) every day. These procedures involve a risk for adverse events (AE). Yet, their prevalence, intensity, and predisposing risk factors remain poorly established. The main objective of the study was to measure the incidence and severity of NCP related AE.

DESIGN

This prospective observational multicentre study was conducted in 9 ICUs. All NCP were recorded for four consecutive weeks. For each NCP, the following were collected: patients' baseline characteristics, type of NCP, characteristics of the NCP, AE and therapeutic responses.

RESULTS

5849 NCP occurred in 340 patients. Among the 340 patients included, 292 (85.9%) were affected by at least one AE, and 141 (41.5%) by an SAE during a NCP. Thirty % of NCP were associated with at least one AE: hemodynamic AE in 17.1%, respiratory AE in 13.6%, agitation and pain (3.7% and 3.3%). Eight invasive devices were accidentally removed. Severe Adverse Events (SAE) occurred in 5.5% of NCP. The main risk factor associated with SAE was pain/agitation at the beginning of the NCP.

CONCLUSION

AE are frequent during NCP in ICU. We identified several risk factors, some of them preventable, that could be considered for the development of recommendations for the nursing care of critically ill patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02881645.

The effectiveness of systematic pain assessment on critically ill patient outcomes: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that critically ill patients' pain may still be underestimated. Systematic approaches to pain assessment are of paramount importance for improving patients' outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effectiveness of a systematic approach to pain assessment on the incidence and intensity of pain and related clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled study with consecutive critically ill patients allocated to either a standard care only or a systematic pain assessment group. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical Pain Observation Tool (C-POT) were completed twice daily for all participants. In the intervention group, clinicians were notified of pain scores. Linear Mixed Models (LMM) for the longitudinal effect of the intervention were employed.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were included (control: n=61; intervention: n2=56). The incidence of pain (C-POT >2) in the intervention group was significantly lower compared to the control group (p < .001). The intervention had a statistically significant effect on pain intensity (BPS, p = 0.01). The average total morphine equivalent dose in the intervention group was higher than in the control group (p = 0.045), as well as the average total dose of propofol (p = 0.027). There were no statistically significant differences in ICU mortality (23.4% vs 19.3%, p=0.38, odds ratio 0.82 [0.337-1.997]) and length of ICU stay (13.5, SD 11.1 vs 13.9, SD 9.5 days, p= 0.47).

CONCLUSION

Systematic pain assessment may be associated with a decrease in the intensity and incidence of pain and influence the pharmacological management of pain and sedation of critically ill patients.

Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self-Report: Clinical Practice Recommendations in Support of the ASPMN 2019 Position Statement

Pain is a subjective experience, unfortunately, some patients cannot provide a self-report of pain verbally, in writing, or by other means. In patients who are unable to self-report pain, other strategies must be used to infer pain and evaluate interventions. In support of the ASPMN position statement "Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self-Report", this paper provides clinical practice recommendations for five populations in which difficulty communicating pain often exists: neonates, toddlers and young children, persons with intellectual disabilities, critically ill/unconscious patients, older adults with advanced dementia, and patients at the end of life. Nurses are integral to ensuring assessment and treatment of these vulnerable populations.

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.

Medical Versus Surgical ICU Obese Patient Outcome: A Propensity-Matched Analysis to Resolve Clinical Trial Controversies

OBJECTIVES

To determine the short- and long-term mortality of obese ICU patients following medical as opposed to surgical admission and the relation between obesity and mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, using a propensity score-matched analysis of patients with medical or surgical admission.

SETTING

One French mixed medical-surgical ICU.

PATIENTS

Critically ill obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m) and nonobese patients admitted during a 14-year period.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seven-hundred ninety-one obese patients and 4,644 nonobese patients were included, 338 (43%) and 2,367 (51%) medical and 453 (57%) and 2,277 (49%) surgical obese and nonobese patients, respectively. Mortality was significantly higher in medical than in surgical obese patients in ICU (25% vs 12%; p < 0.001) and up to 365 days (36% vs 18%; p < 0.001) post ICU admission. One-to-one propensity score matching generated 260 pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. After matching on propensity score, mortality was still significantly higher in medical patients both in the ICU (21% vs 13%; p = 0.03) and up to 365 days (30% vs 20%; p = 0.01) post ICU admission. Obesity was not significantly associated with mortality both in univariate analysis (140 obese patients [15%] in the dead group vs 651 [14%] in the alive group; p = 0.72) and multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.86-1.38]; p = 0.49) after adjustment for Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, age, category of admission, history of cardiac disease, and history of respiratory disease.

CONCLUSIONS

After careful matching, the data suggest that ICU mortality in obese population was higher in the medical group than in the surgical group and remains significantly higher 365 days post ICU admission.

Family Members' Experiences with Observing Pain Behaviors Using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines support family members' participation in care, but little is known regarding their potential contribution to pain assessment using validated behavioral pain scales.

AIMS

This study aimed to describe family members' observations of pain behaviors with the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and their evaluation of the tool and its use, and to understand their experience and perceptions of their potential role in pain management in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

A mixed methods cross-sectional explanatory design was used.

SETTING

A medical-surgical intensive care unit in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

Family members were eligible if they had a loved one admitted in the intensive care unit who was unable to self-report.

METHODS

Family members identified pain behaviors using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool after a brief training, completed a self-administered questionnaire, and participated in a follow-up individual interview regarding their experience and perceived potential role in pain management when their loved one is unable to self-report.

RESULTS

Ten family members participated. A 15-minute training appeared sufficient for family members to be comfortable with observing pain behaviors included in the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. The tool allowed them to confirm their observations of pain behaviors, to focus more on the patient, and to advocate for better pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to explore the views of more family members and to compare their Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores to the ones of nurses' for interrater reliability testing.

Analgesia nociception index for the assessment of pain in critically ill patients: a diagnostic accuracy study

Background

Behavioural pain tools are used in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients unable to self-report their pain-intensity but need sustained efforts to educate and train the ICU team because of the subjective nature of these clinical tools. This study measured the validity and performance of an electrophysiological monitoring tool based on the spectral analysis of heart rate variability, the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) which varies from 0 (minimal parasympathetic tone, maximal stress-response and pain) to 100 (maximal parasympathetic tone, minimal stress-response and pain).

Methods

Mean-ANI (ANIm) and Instant-ANI (ANIi) were continuously recorded then compared with the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) before, during and after routine care procedures in critically-ill non-comatose patients.

Results

969 assessments were performed in 110 patients. ANIi was the most discriminative pain tool. It was significantly correlated with BPS (r=-0.30; 95%CI -0.37 to -0.25; P<0.001). For an ANIi threshold of 42.5, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were respectively 61.4%, 77.4%, 37.0%, and 90.4%. Compared with the BPS, ANIi had no significantly different ability to change during turning and tracheal-suctioning but changed significantly more during dressing change. ANIi increased independently with age, obesity and severity of illness, and controlled mechanical-ventilation, vasopressors use and analgesia. ANIi decreased independently when vigilance status and respiratory rate increased. ANIm demonstrated poor psychometric properties to detect pain.

Conclusions

Despite low sensitivity/specificity, ANIi≥43 had a Negative-Predictive-Value of 90%. Hence ANIi may be of highest benefit for excluding significant pain. A randomized controlled trial should compare sedation-analgesia protocols based on ANIi to presently recommended behavioural-pain-tools.

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.

Comparison of Two Pain Scales: Behavioral Pain Scale and Critical-care Pain Observation Tool During Invasive and Noninvasive Procedures in Intensive Care Unit-admitted Patients

Background:

Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) frequently experience pain, but the severity of pain in this group of patients is underestimated by the treatment team due to barriers to verbal communication. The aim of the present study was comparing the severity of pain measured by two scales: behavioral pain scale (BPS) and critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) in ICU-admitted patients during routine daily procedures.

Materials and Methods:

Ninety patients were enrolled in the study. The severity of pain was measured during resting, invasive (suctioning) and noninvasive (mouthwash and body position change) procedures, and respiratory physiotherapy with two scales: BPS and CPOT. Wilcoxon and Friedman statistical tests were used to compare the score of pain in different situations, and Spearman correlation coefficient was also used to measure the correlation of pain score measured by two scales.

Results:

Patients experienced no pain during resting, mild pain during changing position, and respiratory physiotherapy, mild-to-moderate pain during mouthwash and moderate pain during secretion suctioning. Wilcoxon test used for pairwise comparisons between pain score in different situations showed a significant difference in both scales (p < 0.05). There were positive and strong correlations (r > 0.80, p < 0.05) between the pain score measured by BPS and CPOT from ICU-admitted patients in all procedures.

Conclusions:

Critically ill patients in ICU experience a different range of pain in routine daily care. BPS and CPOT scales could be used successfully for monitoring of pain in this group of patients.

Validation of The Critical-care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for the detection of oral-pharyngeal pain in critically ill adults

OBJECTIVE

Mechanically ventilated patients experience pain at rest and during daily care procedures. Our objective was to test the reliability and validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to detect oral-pharyngeal pain in intubated and tracheostomised adults during routine oral care procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two trained research team members independently observed patients during two non-painful (rest and gentle touch) and three potentially painful (oral suctioning, tooth brushing, and swabbing with a sponge toothette) procedures. Conscious patients were asked if they experienced pain during each procedure (yes/no) and to rate their pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients, primarily intubated (92.9%) and male (63.3%) participated. Criterion validation was supported by patient self-report of pain during tooth brushing (AUC=.80; P<0.5) and oral suction (AUC=.72; P<0.3) but not for oral swabbing (AUC=.68; P=0.16). Discriminative validation was demonstrated for all oral care procedures compared to rest (P<.001). Intra-class correlation coefficients between raters ranged from .78 to .91 (P<.001) for total CPOT scores, indicating excellent inter-rater reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPOT is reliable and valid for the detection of oral-pharyngeal pain during oral care procedures indicated as painful by critically ill adults.

Risk factors and outcomes for airway failure versus non-airway failure in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study of 1514 extubation procedures

BACKGROUND

Patients liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation are at risk of extubation failure, including inability to breathe without a tracheal tube (airway failure) or without mechanical ventilation (non-airway failure). We sought to identify respective risk factors for airway failure and non-airway failure following extubation.

METHODS

The primary endpoint of this prospective, observational, multicenter study in 26 intensive care units was extubation failure, defined as need for reintubation within 48 h following extubation. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for airway failure and non-airway failure.

RESULTS

Between 1 December 2013 and 1 May 2015, 1514 patients undergoing extubation were enrolled. The extubation-failure rate was 10.4% (157/1514), including 70/157 (45%) airway failures, 78/157 (50%) non-airway failures, and 9/157 (5%) mixed airway and non-airway failures. By multivariable analysis, risk factors for extubation failure were either common to airway failure and non-airway failure: intubation for coma (OR 4.979 (2.797-8.864), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.067 (1.217-3.510), P = 0.003, respectively, intubation for acute respiratory failure (OR 3.395 (1.877-6.138), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.067 (1.217-3.510), P = 0.007, respectively, absence of strong cough (OR 1.876 (1.047-3.362), P = 0.03 and OR 3.240 (1.786-5.879), P = 0.0001, respectively, or specific to each specific mechanism: female gender (OR 2.024 (1.187-3.450), P = 0.01), length of ventilation > 8 days (OR 1.956 (1.087-3.518), P = 0.025), copious secretions (OR 4.066 (2.268-7.292), P < 0.0001) were specific to airway failure, whereas non-obese status (OR 2.153 (1.052-4.408), P = 0.036) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 8 (OR 1.848 (1.100-3.105), P = 0.02) were specific to non-airway failure. Both airway failure and non-airway failure were associated with ICU mortality (20% and 22%, respectively, as compared to 6% in patients with extubation success, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific risk factors have been identified, allowing us to distinguish between risk of airway failure and non-airway failure. The two conditions will be managed differently, both for prevention and curative strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 02450669 . Registered on 21 May 2015.

Safety of Patient Mobilization and Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Early mobilization and rehabilitation of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) may improve physical function, and reduce the duration of delirium, mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. However, safety concerns are an important barrier to widespread implementation.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize safety data regarding patient mobilization and rehabilitation in the ICU, including falls, removal of endotracheal tubes, removal or dysfunction of intravascular catheters, removal of other catheters/tubes, cardiac arrest, hemodynamic changes, and desaturation.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature review, including searches of five databases. Eligible studies evaluated patients who received mobilization-related interventions in the ICU. Exclusion criteria included: (1) case series with fewer than 10 patients; (2) majority of patients under 18 years of age; and (3) data not reported to permit calculation of incidence of safety events.

DATA EXTRACTION

Number of patients, mobilization/rehabilitation sessions, potential safety events, and events with negative consequences (e.g., requiring intervention or additional therapy).

SYNTHESIS

Heterogeneity was assessed by I² statistics, and bias assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment. The literature search identified 20,660 titles. There were 48 eligible publications evaluating 7,546 patients, with 583 potential safety events occurring in 22,351 mobilization/rehabilitation sessions. There was a total of 583 (2.6%) potential safety events with heterogeneity in the definitions for these events. For the safety event types that could be meta-analyzed, pooled incidences per 1,000 mobilization/rehabilitation sessions (95% confidence interval), were: hemodynamic changes, 3.8 (1.3-11.4), and desaturation, 1.9 (0.9-4.3). A total of 24 studies of 3,404 patients reported on any consequences of potential safety events (e.g., needing to increase dose of vasopressor due to mobility-related hypotension), with a frequency of 0.6% in 14,398 mobilization/rehabilitation sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient mobilization and physical rehabilitation in the ICU appears safe, with a low incidence of potential safety events, and only rare events having any consequences for patient management. Heterogeneity in the definition of safety events across studies emphasizes the importance of implementing existing consensus-based definitions.

The 2014 updated version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit compared to the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and other current methods used by intensivists

BACKGROUND

One third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) will develop delirium. However, delirium is under-recognized by bedside clinicians without the use of delirium screening tools, such as the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The CAM-ICU was updated in 2014 to improve its use by clinicians throughout the world. It has never been validated compared to the new reference standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th version (DSM-5).

METHODS

We made a prospective psychometric study in a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU of a French academic hospital, to measure the diagnostic performance of the 2014 updated CAM-ICU compared to the DSM-5 as the reference standard. We included consecutive adult patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) ≥ -3, without preexisting cognitive disorders, psychosis or cerebral injury. Delirium was independently assessed by neuropsychological experts using an operationalized approach to DSM-5, by investigators using the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, by bedside clinicians and by ICU patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated considering neuropsychologist DSM-5 assessments as the reference standard (primary endpoint). CAM-ICU inter-observer agreement, as well as that between delirium diagnosis methods and the reference standard, was summarized using κ coefficients, which were subsequently compared using the Z-test.

RESULTS

Delirium was diagnosed by experts in 38% of the 108 patients included for analysis. The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 91%. Compared to the reference standard, the CAM-ICU had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher agreement (κ = 0.86 ± 0.05) than the physicians,' residents' and nurses' diagnoses (κ = 0.65 ± 0.09; 0.63 ± 0.09; 0.61 ± 0.09, respectively), as well as the patient's own impression of feeling delirious (κ = 0.02 ± 0.11). Differences between the ICDSC (κ = 0.69 ± 0.07) and CAM-ICU were not significant (p = 0.054). The CAM-ICU demonstrated a high reliability for inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.87 ± 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2014 updated version of the CAM-ICU is valid according to DSM-5 criteria and reliable regarding inter-observer agreement in a research setting. Delirium remains under-recognized by bedside clinicians.

Patient Recollection of ICU Procedural Pain and Post ICU Burden: The Memory Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess patients' recollections of in-ICU procedural pain and its impact on post-ICU burden.

DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal study of patients who underwent ICU procedures.

SETTING

Thirty-four ICUs in France and Belgium.

PATIENTS

Two hundred thirty-six patients who had undergone ICU procedures.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were interviewed 3-16 months after hospitalization about: 1) recall of procedural pain intensity and pain distress (on 0-10 numeric rating scale); 2) current pain; that is, having pain in the past week that was not present before hospitalization; and 3) presence of traumatic stress (Impact of Events Scale). For patients who could rate recalled procedural pain intensity (n = 56) and pain distress (n = 43), both were significantly higher than their median (interquartile range) in ICU procedural pain scores (pain intensity: 5 [4-7] vs 3 [2.5-5], p < 0.001; pain distress: 5 [2-6] vs 2 [0-6], p = 0.003, respectively.) Current pain was reported in 14% of patients. When comparing patients with and without current pain, patients with current pain recalled even greater ICU procedural pain intensity and pain distress scores than patients without current pain: pain intensity, 8 (6-8) versus 5 (3.25-7); p = 0.002 and pain distress, 7 (5-8) versus 4 (2-6); p = 0.01, respectively. Patients with current pain also had significantly higher Impact of Events Scale scores than those without current pain (8.5 [3.5-24] vs 2 [0-10]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Many patients remembered ICU, with far fewer able to rate procedure-associated pain. For those able to do so, recalled pain intensity and pain distress scores were significantly greater than reported in ICU. One in seven patients was having current pain, recalling even higher ICU procedural pain scores and greater traumatic stress when compared with patients without current pain. Studies are needed to assess the impact of ICU procedural pain on post-ICU pain recall, pain status over time, and the relationship between postdischarge pain status and post-ICU burden.

Symptom assessment in non-vocal or cognitively impaired ICU patients: Implications for practice and future research

BACKGROUND

Symptom assessment in critically ill patients is challenging because many cannot provide a self-report.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the state of the science on symptom communication and the assessment of selected physical symptoms in non-vocal ICU patients.

METHODS

This paper summarizes a 2014 American Thoracic Society Annual International Conference symposium presenting current evidence on symptom communication, delirium, and the assessment of common physical symptoms (i.e., dyspnea, pain, weakness, and fatigue) experienced by non-vocal ICU patients.

RESULTS

Symptom assessment begins with accurate assessment, which includes an evaluation of delirium, and assistance in symptom communication. Simple self-report measures (e.g., 0-10 numeric rating scale), observational measures (e.g., Respiratory Distress Observation Scale and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool), or objective measures (e.g., manual muscle testing and hand dynamometry) have demonstrated utility among this population.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing symptom assessment with valid and reliable instruments with minimum patient burden is necessary to advance clinical practice and research in this field.

The Behavior Pain Assessment Tool for critically ill adults: a validation study in 28 countries

Many critically ill adults are unable to communicate their pain through self-report. The study purpose was to validate the use of the 8-item Behavior Pain Assessment Tool (BPAT) in patients hospitalized in 192 intensive care units from 28 countries. A total of 4812 procedures in 3851 patients were included in data analysis. Patients were assessed with the BPAT before and during procedures by 2 different raters (mostly nurses and physicians). Those who were able to self-report were asked to rate their pain intensity and pain distress on 0 to 10 numeric rating scales. Interrater reliability of behavioral observations was supported by moderate (0.43-0.60) to excellent (>0.60) kappa coefficients. Mixed effects multilevel logistic regression models showed that most behaviors were more likely to be present during the procedure than before and in less sedated patients, demonstrating discriminant validation of the tool use. Regarding criterion validation, moderate positive correlations were found during procedures between the mean BPAT scores and the mean pain intensity (r = 0.54) and pain distress (r = 0.49) scores (P < 0.001). Regression models showed that all behaviors were significant predictors of pain intensity and pain distress, accounting for 35% and 29% of their total variance, respectively. A BPAT cut-point score >3.5 could classify patients with or without severe levels (≥8) of pain intensity and distress with sensitivity and specificity findings ranging from 61.8% to 75.1%. The BPAT was found to be reliable and valid. Its feasibility for use in practice and the effect of its clinical implementation on patient pain and intensive care unit outcomes need further research.

Adherence to All Steps of a Pain Management Protocol in Intensive Care Patients after Cardiac Surgery Is Hard to Achieve

Purpose. To investigate adherence to our pain protocol considering analgesics administration, number and timing of pain assessments, and adjustment of analgesics upon unacceptably high (NRS ≥ 4) and low (NRS ≤ 1) pain scores. Material and Methods. The pain protocol for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery consisted of automated prescriptions for paracetamol and morphine, automated reminders for pain assessments, a flowchart to guide interventions upon high and low pain scores, and reassessments after unacceptable pain. Results. Paracetamol and morphine were prescribed in all 124 patients. Morphine infusion was stopped earlier than protocolized in 40 patients (32%). During the median stay of 47 hours [IQR 26 to 74 hours], 702/706 (99%) scheduled pain assessments and 218 extra pain scores were recorded. Unacceptably high pain scores accounted for 96/920 (10%) and low pain scores for 546/920 (59%) of all assessments. Upon unacceptable pain additional morphine was administered in 65% (62/96) and reassessment took place in 15% (14/96). Morphine was not tapered in 273 of 303 (90%) eligible cases of low pain scores. Conclusions. Adherence to automated prescribed analgesics and pain assessments was good. Adherence to nonscheduled, flowchart-guided interventions was poor. Improving adherence may refine pain management and reduce side effects.

Physiological changes associated with routine nursing procedures in critically ill are common: an observational pilot study

BACKGROUND

Nursing procedures that are routinely performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) are assumed to have minimal side effects. However, these procedures may sometimes cause physiological changes that negatively affect the patient. We hypothesized that physiological changes associated with routine nursing procedures in the ICU are common.

METHODS

A clinical observational study of 16 critically ill patients in a nine-bed mixed university hospital ICU. All nursing procedures were observed, and physiological data were collected and subsequently analyzed. Minor physiological changes were defined as minimal changes in respiratory or circulatory variables, and major physiological changes were marked as hyper/hypotension, bradycardia/tachycardia, bradypnea/tachypnea, ventilatory distress, and peripheral blood oxygen desaturation.

RESULTS

In the 16 patients, 668 procedures generated 158 major and 692 minor physiological changes during 187 observational hours. The most common procedure was patient position change, which also generated the majority of the physiological changes. The most common major physiological changes were blood oxygen desaturation, ventilatory distress, and hypotension, and the most common minor changes were arterial pressure alteration, coughing, and increase in respiratory rate.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, we examined physiological changes in connection with all regular routine nursing procedures in the ICU. We found that physiological changes were common and sometimes severe.

The Impact of Evidence-Based Practices on Postoperative Pain in Patients undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery in Amiralmomenin Hospital in Zabol During 2014-2015

INTRODUCTION

The Evidence-Based Practices (EBP), have gained considerable ground in treatment and care, increases the quality of nurses' clinical care. Yet EBP is less frequently employed despite its efficiency and importance. Pain management is an important component of nursing care and sufficient pain control has still remained as a challenge despite routine nursing practices that are already provided.

AIM

The present study intended to define the impact of evidence-based nursing practices on postoperative pain in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was a single group quasi-experimental study with before/after design. The study was conducted in the General Surgery Departments of the Amiralmomenin Hospital in Zabol during 2014-2015. A purposive sampling method was used to study 55 patients undergoing abdominal surgery. The data collection tool was a questionnaire. The patients pain severity was defined before and after implementing evidence-based practices. The collected data were analysed in SPSS using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.

RESULTS

The results showed that 61.8% of patients experienced severe postoperative pain. The mean perceived pain ratings in women and men were 7.88±1.78 and 9.42±0.81, respectively. The mean pain intensity was 8.48±1.66 before the intervention and reached 7.16±1.71 after the intervention, which was significant based on Kruskal-Wallis test (p=0.003). The mean postoperative pain experienced by the patients (p<0.01) and pain-relief following the intervention (p=0.002) was significant for gender.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that a high percentage of patients experienced acute postoperative pain despite routine nursing care, while evidence-based nursing practices could significantly alleviate pain.

Psychometric validation of the behavioral indicators of pain scale for the assessment of pain in mechanically ventilated and unable to self-report critical care patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of the behavioral indicators of pain scale (ESCID) when applied to a wide range of medical and surgical critical patients.

DESIGN

A multicentre, prospective observational study was designed to validate a scale measuring instrument.

SETTING

Twenty Intensive Care Units of 14 hospitals belonging to the Spanish National Health System.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 286 mechanically ventilated, unable to self-report critically ill medical and surgical adult patients.

PROCEDURE

Pain levels were measured by two independent evaluators simultaneously, using two scales: ESCID and the behavioral pain scale (BPS). Pain was observed before, during, and after two painful procedures (turning, tracheal suctioning) and one non-painful procedure.

MAIN VARIABLES

ESCID reliability was measured on the basis of internal consistency using the Cronbach-α coefficient. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were measured. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between ESCID and BPS.

RESULTS

A total of 4386 observations were made in 286 patients (62% medical and 38% surgical). High correlation was found between ESCID and BPS (r=0.94-0.99; p<0.001), together with high intra-rater and inter-rater concordance. ESCID was internally reliable, with a Cronbach-α value of 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). Cronbach-α coefficients for ESCID domains were high: facial expression 0.87 (95%CI 0.84-0.89), calmness 0.84 (95%CI 0.81-0.87), muscle tone 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), compliance with mechanical ventilation 0.70 (95%CI 0.63-0.75) and consolability 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88).

CONCLUSION

ESCID is valid and reliable for measuring pain in mechanically ventilated unable to self-report medical and surgical critical care patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01744717.

Results of implementing a pain management algorithm in intensive care unit patients: The impact on pain assessment, length of stay, and duration of ventilation

PURPOSE

This study aimed to measure the impact of implementing a pain management algorithm in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients able to express pain. No controlled study has previously evaluated the impact of a pain management algorithm both at rest and during procedures, including both patients able to self-report and express pain behavior, intubated and nonintubated patients, throughout their ICU stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The algorithm instructed nurses to assess pain, guided them in pain treatment, and was implemented in 3 units. A time period after implementing the algorithm (intervention group) was compared with a time period the previous year (control group) on the outcome variables: pain assessments, duration of ventilation, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, use of analgesic and sedative medications, and the incidence of agitation events.

RESULTS

Totally, 650 patients were included. The number of pain assessments was higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. In addition, duration of ventilation and length of ICU stay decreased significantly in the intervention group compared with the control group. This difference remained significant after adjusting for patient characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Several outcome variables were significantly improved after implementation of the algorithm compared with the control group.

Pathophysiology, assessment, and management of pain in critically ill adults

PURPOSE

The pathophysiology of pain in critically ill patients, the role of pain assessment in optimal pain management, and pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies for pain prevention and treatment are reviewed.

SUMMARY

There are many short- and long-term consequences of inadequately treated pain, including hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, an increased risk of infection, decreased patient comfort and satisfaction, and the development of chronic pain. Clinicians should have an understanding of the basic physiology of pain and the patient populations that are affected. Pain should be assessed using validated pain scales that are appropriate for the patient's communication status. Opioids are the cornerstone of pain treatment. The use of opioids, administered via bolus dosing or continuous infusion, should be guided by patient-specific goals of care in order to avoid adverse events. A multimodal approach to pain management, including the use of regional analgesia, may improve patient outcomes and decrease opioid-related adverse events, though there are limited relevant data in adult critically ill patient populations. Nonpharmacologic strategies have been shown to be effective adjuncts to pharmacologic regimens that can improve patient-reported pain intensity and reduce analgesic requirements. Analgesic regimens need to take into account patient-specific factors and be closely monitored for safety and efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Acute pain management in the critically ill is a largely underassessed and undertreated area of critical care. Opioids are the cornerstone of treatment, though a multimodal approach may improve patient outcomes and decrease opioid-related adverse events.