Sedation management in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units: doctors' and nurses' practices and opinions

Enhancing European Management of Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium: A Multinational, Prospective, Interventional Before-After Trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of a structured educational intervention on the implementation of guideline-recommended pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) assessment.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multinational, interventional before-after trial conducted at 12 intensive care units from 10 centers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. Intensive care units underwent a 6-week structured educational program, comprising online lectures, instructional videos, educational handouts, and bedside teaching. Patient-level PAD assessment data were collected in three 1-day point-prevalence assessments before (T1), 6 weeks after (T2), and 1 year after (T3) the educational program.

RESULTS

A total of 430 patients were included. The rate of patients who received all three PAD assessments changed from 55% (107/195) at T1 to 53% (68/129) at T2, but increased to 73% (77/106) at T3 (p = 0.003). The delirium screening rate increased from 64% (124/195) at T1 to 65% (84/129) at T2 and 77% (82/106) at T3 (p = 0.041). The pain assessment rate increased from 87% (170/195) at T1 to 92% (119/129) at T2 and 98% (104/106) at T3 (p = 0.005). The rate of sedation assessment showed no signficiant change. The proportion of patients who received nonpharmacological delirium prevention measures increased from 58% (114/195) at T1 to 80% (103/129) at T2 and 91% (96/106) at T3 (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed that at T3, patients were more likely to receive a delirium assessment (odds ratio [OR] 2.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.206-3.790; p = 0.009), sedation assessment (OR 4.131, 95% CI 1.372-12.438; p = 0.012), or all three PAD assessments (OR 2.295, 95% CI 1.349-3.903; p = 0.002) compared with T1.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine care, many patients were not assessed for PAD. Assessment rates increased significantly 1 year after the intervention. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03553719.

Ethnic Disparities in Deep Sedation of Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the United States: Secondary Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Trial

Rationale: Patients identified as Hispanic, the largest minority group in the United States, are more likely to die from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) than non-Hispanic patients. Mechanisms to explain this disparity remain unidentified. However, Hispanic patients may be at risk of overexposure to deep sedation because of language differences between patients and clinicians, and deep sedation is associated with higher ARDS mortality.Objective: We examined associations between Hispanic ethnicity and exposure to deep sedation among patients with ARDS.Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted of patients enrolled in the control arm of a randomized trial of neuromuscular blockade for ARDS across 48 U.S. hospitals. Exposure to deep sedation was measured over the first 5 days that a patient was alive and received mechanical ventilation. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to evaluate associations between Hispanic ethnicity and exposure to deep sedation, controlling for patient characteristics.Results: Patients identified as Hispanic had approximately five times the odds of deep sedation (odds ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 2.02-12.28; P < 0.0001) on a given day, compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Hospitals with at least one enrolled Hispanic patient kept all enrolled patients deeply sedated longer than hospitals without any enrolled Hispanic patients (85.8% of ventilator-days vs. 65.5%; P < 0.001).Conclusions: Hispanic patients are at higher risk of exposure to deep sedation than non-Hispanic White patients. There is an urgent need to understand and address disparities in sedation delivery.

The complications of opioid use during and post-intensive care admission: A narrative review

Opioids are a commonly administered analgesic medication in the intensive care unit, primarily to facilitate invasive mechanical ventilation. Consensus guidelines advocate for an opioid-first strategy for the management of acute pain in ventilated patients. As a result, these patients are potentially exposed to high opioid doses for prolonged periods, increasing the risk of adverse effects. Adverse effects relevant to these critically ill patients include delirium, intensive care unit-acquired infections, acute opioid tolerance, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, persistent opioid use, and chronic post-intensive care unit pain. Consequently, there is a challenge of optimising analgesia while minimising these adverse effects. This narrative review will discuss the characteristics of opioid use in the intensive care unit, outline the potential short-term and long-term adverse effects of opioid therapy in critically ill patients, and outline a multifaceted strategy for opioid minimisation.

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.

Ventilation bundle compliance in two Australian intensive care units: An observational study

Background

The ventilation bundle has been used in adult intensive care units to decrease harm and improve quality of care for mechanically ventilated patients. The ventilation bundle focuses on prevention of specific complications of mechanical ventilation; ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis, barotrauma, pulmonary oedema, pulmonary embolism, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement ventilation bundle consists of five structured evidence-based interventions: head of the bed elevation at 30–45°; daily sedation interruptions and assessment of readiness to extubate; peptic ulcer prophylaxis; deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis; and daily oral care with chlorhexidine.

Objectives

The objective of the study was to evaluate the use of the ventilation bundle in two intensive care units in Victoria, Australia.

Methods

This is a 3-month prospective observational study in two intensive care units. Patient medical records were reviewed on days 3, 4, and 5 of mechanical ventilation using a prevalidated ventilation bundle checklist.

Results

A total of 96 critically ill patients required mechanical ventilation for more than 2 d. Patients had a mean age of 64.50 y (standard deviation = 14.89), with an Acute Physiology, Age, Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III mean score of 79.27 (standard deviation = 27.11). The mean ventilation bundle compliance rate was 88.3% on the three consecutive mechanical ventilation days (day 3 = 79.4%, day 4 = 91.1%, and day 5 = 96.7%). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean APACHE III score between patients who had head of bed elevation and those without head of bed elevation, on days 3 (p = <0.001) and 4 (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

The ventilation bundle elements were used in Australian intensive care units. The likelihood of having all ventilation bundle elements on day 3 was low if the patient's APACHE III score was high. However, the ventilation bundle compliance rate increased with mechanical ventilation days.

A quality improvement project to improve the identification and management of delirium

BACKGROUND

Efforts to reduce delirium burden through screening, identification, and prevention is considered one of the major public health priorities of the last decade. In 2017, an audit of delirium screening in our unit revealed suboptimum assessment of our patients, with compliance with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessments highly variable and ad hoc, and sometimes not at all. A separate sedation audit also revealed that our sedation practices did not align with current critical care guidelines emphasizing light sedation strategies.

AIM

The aim of this project was to develop resources to educate the unit on delirium, improve the management of sedation with a sedation algorithm, formalize the elements of delirium prevention and care into a delirium pathway, and improve the compliance with delirium screening.

METHODS

We developed a delirium clinical pathway and sedation algorithm, a delirium resource book, and an online educational module on the district health board (DHB) intranet. We provided extensive teaching of all these resources over delirium month. We used pre- and post-auditing of sedation practices and delirium screening compliance to inform the success of this project.

RESULTS

Of the 140 members of staff, 85% (n = 120) received delirium education. In 2018/2019, 84% of 145 patient charts reached the unit standard of four to six hourly CAM-ICU assessments compared with 45% in 2017. The sedation audit revealed a slight improvement in the trend towards lighter sedation, with Richmond Agitation Sedation Scoring (RASS) scores reflecting light sedation, increasing from a mean of 31% in 2017 to 41% in 2019 from 41 patient charts.

CONCLUSIONS

This project provides a useful framework to enable future quality improvement work around delirium and sedation management. The clinical pathway and sedation algorithm have been a useful tool to introduce to the unit as a way of formalizing the elements of delirium care and assessment.

Nurses' Attitudes and Practices Related to Sedation: A National Survey

BACKGROUND

Nurses are fundamental to the implementation of sedation protocols for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A 2005 survey showed that nurses' attitudes toward sedation affected their sedation practices. Since then, updated guidelines on managing pain, agitation, and delirium have been published.

OBJECTIVE

To explore nurses' self-reported attitudes and practices related to sedation and determine whether they have changed in the past decade.

METHODS

Members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses were invited to complete the Nurse Sedation Practices Scale, which measures nurses' self-reported sedation practices and factors that affect them. Item and subscale responses were analyzed, and differences in item responses by respondent characteristics were determined.

RESULTS

Respondents (N = 177) were mostly staff nurses (68%) with a bachelor's degree in nursing (63%). Nurses' attitudes toward the effectiveness of sedation in relieving patients' distress during mechanical ventilation correlated positively with their intention to administer sedatives (r _s = 0.65). Sixty-six percent of nurses agreed that sedation was necessary for patients' comfort, and 34% agreed that limiting patients' recall was a desired outcome of sedation. Respondents with more experience or CCRN certification had a less positive evaluation of the effectiveness of sedation in minimizing distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses' attitudes toward sedating patients receiving mechanical ventilation have shifted in the past decade, with fewer nurses now believing that all patients should be sedated. However, more than half of nurses still agree that sedation is needed for patients' comfort, highlighting the need to consider nurses' attitudes when seeking to optimize sedation practices during mechanical ventilation.

An audit of propofol administration in the intensive care unit: Infusion pump-recorded versus electronically documented amounts

BACKGROUND

Although propofol is widely used for sedation in intensive care units around Australia, evaluation of bedside nursing practices of the administration of propofol have been limited. We investigated whether there was a discrepancy between the amount of propofol delivered by the infusion pump and that recorded electronically and consequently patient exposure to avoidable harms.

AIMS

The aim of this research was to compare the total amount of propofol administered to intensive care patients via a programmable infusion pump with that documented in the electronic medical record (EMR). Secondary objectives were to ascertain the percentage of 1) patients exposed to a propofol dose greater than recommended and 2) daily energy requirements administered as propofol infusion.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study of total propofol delivered to 50 patients in a 14-bed metropolitan, Australian intensive care unit. Infusion pump data and entries from the EMR were collated.

RESULTS

Propofol sedation was administered for a median 18 (interquartile range: 14-47) hours with median total propofol 3025 mg (interquartile range: 1840-7755 mg) by pump and 3250 mg (interquartile range: 1915-6960 mg) by EMR, i.e. 1.9 (interquartile range: 1.3-2.3) mg/kg/hour by pump (correlation coefficient = 0.99). The total bolus propofol documented in the EMR was a median 330 mg (interquartile range: -838 to -124) less than the pump amount. Nineteen (38%) patients had no EMR-documented propofol boluses yet had received at least one bolus via the pump. In two of 50 (4%) patients, the pump propofol infusion dose was above the recommended maximum safe dose of 4 mg/kg/h.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of patients, the bolus administration of propofol was frequently not documented, potentially placing some patients at risk of drug-related toxicity. Further research to develop and implement strategies to improve the documentation of propofol administration is indicated.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Interprofessional Team's Perception of Care Delivery After Implementation of a Pediatric Pain and Sedation Protocol

BACKGROUND

Pain and agitation are common experiences of patients in pediatric cardiac intensive care units. Variability in assessments by health care providers, communication, and treatment of pain and agitation creates challenges in management of pain and sedation.

OBJECTIVES

To develop guidelines for assessment and treatment of pain, agitation, and delirium in the pediatric cardiac intensive unit in an academic children's hospital and to document the effects of implementation of the guidelines on the interprofessional team's perception of care delivery and team function.

METHODS

Before and after implementation of the guidelines, interprofessional team members were surveyed about the members' perception of analgesia, sedation, and delirium management RESULTS: Members of the interprofessional team felt more comfortable with pain and sedation management after implementation of the guidelines. Team members reported improvements in team communication on patients' comfort. Members thought that important information was less likely to be lost during transfer of care. They also noted that the team carried out comfort management plans and used pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies better after implementation of the guidelines than they did before implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines for pain and sedation management were associated with perceived improvements in team function and patient care by members of the interprofessional team.

Multicenter assessment of sedation and delirium practices in the intensive care units in Poland - is this common practice in Eastern Europe?

Background

The majority of critically ill patients experience distress during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), resulting from systemic illness, multiple interventions and environmental factors. Providing humane care should address concomitant treatment of pain, agitation and delirium. The use of sedation and approaches to ICU delirium should be monitored according to structured guidelines. However, it is unknown to what extent these concepts are followed in Eastern European countries like Poland. The aim of this study was to evaluate sedation and delirium practices in ICUs in Poland, as a representative of the Eastern European block, particularly the implementation of sedation and ICU delirium screening tools, availability of written sedation guidelines, choice of sedation and delirium treatment agents.

Methods

A national postal survey was conducted in all Polish ICUs in early 2016.

Results

A total of 165 responses out of 436 addressed units were received (37.8%). Out of responding ICUs delirium is monitored in only 11.9% of the units in Poland. Sedation monitoring tool is used in only 46.1% of units. Only 19.4% of ICUs have written protocols for sedation and 32.1% do not practice daily sedation interruption. The most frequently used agents for short-term sedation (<24 h) were propofol and fentanyl infusions and benzodiazepines (midazolam) and morphine for longer sedation (>24 h). The preferred agents for delirium treatment were haloperidol (77.6%), dexmedetomidine (43.6%) and quetiapine (19.4%). Close to one-third (32.7%) of respondents chose a benzodiazepine (diazepam) for ICU delirium treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment for ICU delirium was reported by only 45% of the respondents.

Conclusions

A majority of Polish ICUs do not adhere to international guidelines regarding sedation and delirium practices. There continues to be inadequate use of sedation and delirium monitoring tools. High usage of benzodiazepines for sedation and ICU delirium treatment reveals persistence of non-evidence-based practice. This study should prompt further assessment of other Eastern Europe countries and help generate a collective response to update these aspects of patient safety and comfort.

Associação entre intensidades de dor e sedação em pacientes de terapia intensiva

Resumo Objetivos Identificar o perfil clínico, intensidades de dor e sedação em pacientes na unidade de terapia intensiva e associar os dados. Métodos Estudo quantitativo e transversal, realizado em unidade de terapia intensiva de um hospital de ensino. Amostra de 240 pacientes. Os dados clínicos foram obtidos do prontuário eletrônico. Foram utilizadas escalas de sedação e agitação de Richmond, dor visual numérica e Behavioral pain scale, preenchidas por enfermeiros. Resultados Prevaleceram pacientes não idosos, masculinos, neurológicos, cirúrgicos, com sedação profunda. Houve maior mortalidade em pacientes com sedação profunda e maior tempo de internação naqueles com sedação moderada. A sedação não se mostrou efetiva para suprimir a dor, mas serviu para controlar sua intensidade. Conclusão A identificação da intensidade de dor e sedação realizada por enfermeiros auxilia na tomada de decisão e propicia adequado manejo da sedoanalgesia de pacientes em terapia intensiva.

Identifying Barriers to Delivering the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium, and Early Exercise/Mobility Bundle to Minimize Adverse Outcomes for Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes are associated with the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium, and Early exercise/mobility bundle (ABCDE); however, implementation issues are common. As yet, no study has integrated the barriers to ABCDE to provide an overview of reasons for less successful efforts. The purpose of this review was to identify and catalog the barriers to ABCDE delivery based on a widely used implementation framework, and to provide a resource to guide clinicians in overcoming barriers to implementation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus for original research articles from January 1, 2007, to August 31, 2016, that identified barriers to ABCDE implementation for adult patients in the ICU. Two reviewers independently reviewed studies, extracted barriers, and conducted thematic content analysis of the barriers, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Discrepancies were discussed, and consensus was achieved.

RESULTS

Our electronic search yielded 1,908 articles. After applying our inclusion/exclusion criteria, we included 49 studies. We conducted thematic content analysis of the 107 barriers and identified four classes of ABCDE barriers: (1) patient-related (ie, patient instability and safety concerns); (2) clinician-related (ie, lack of knowledge, staff safety concerns); (3) protocol-related (ie, unclear protocol criteria, cumbersome protocols to use); and, not previously identified in past reviews, (4) ICU contextual barriers (ie, interprofessional team care coordination).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide the first, to our knowledge, systematic differential diagnosis of barriers to ABCDE delivery, moving beyond the conventional focus on patient-level factors. Our analysis offers a differential diagnosis checklist for clinicians planning ABCDE implementation to improve patient care and outcomes.

Current views of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

International best practice endorses the use of standardized approaches in the management of pediatric patients in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). There is increasing awareness of the risk of prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation as a consequence of morphine use leading to ventilator-associated pneumonia, extended PICU and hospital length of stay and increased morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, a fundamental outcome measure of this study was to determine whether raising awareness of these issues and the introduction of analgesia and sedation guidelines led to a reduction in the amount of analgesics and sedatives administered to PICU patients, while not exposing them to pain and distress. The present review article is devoted to discussing all important aspects of PICU.

Antinociceptive effects of dexmedetomidine via spinal substance P and CGRP

The aim of this study was to examine the role played by substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) within the dorsal horn of the spinal cord in engagement of antinociception evoked by dexmedetomidine (DEX). Paw withdrawal threshold (PWT) to mechanical stimulation was determined after chronic intrathecal infusion of DEX and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was employed to examine the levels of spinal substance P and CGRP. Our results show that PWT was significantly increased by intrathecal administration of DEX in rats (P < 0.05 vs. vehicle control, n = 20 in each group). Also, intrathecal infusion of DEX significantly decreased the concentrations of substance P and CGRP as compared with vehicle control (P < 0.05 DEX vs. vehicle control, n = 20 in each group). Blocking α₂-adrenoreceptors (α₂-AR) blunted the decreases of substance P and CGRP levels and the enhancement of PWT evoked by DEX. Additionally, a linear relationship was observed between PWT and the levels of spinal substance P (r = 0.87; P < 0.005) and CGRP (r = 0.85; P < 0.005). Moreover, blocking individual substance P and CGRP receptors amplified PWT without altering substance P and CGRP levels. Thus, DEX plays a role in stimulating α₂-AR receptors, which thereby decreases substance P and CGRP levels within the dorsal horn. This contributes to DEX-evoked antinociception.

The Benefit of Benzodiazepine Reduction: Improving Sedation in Surgical Intensive Care

Aims:

Sedation, as it is often required in critical care, is associated with immobilization, prolonged ventilation, and increased morbidity. Most sedation protocols are based on benzodiazepines. The presented study analyzes the benefit of benzodiazepine-free sedation.

Methods:

In 2008, 134 patients were treated according to a protocol using benzodiazepine and propofol (Group 1). In 2009, we introduced a new sedation strategy based on sufentanil, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuroleptics, and antidepressants, which was applied in 140 consecutive patients (Group 2). Depth of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of Intensive Care Unit, and hospital stay were analyzed.

Results:

Group 1 had both a longer duration of deep sedation (18.7 ± 2.5 days vs. 12.6 ± 1.85 days, P = 0.031) and a longer duration of controlled ventilation (311, 35 ± 32.69 vs. 143, 96 ± 20.76 h, P < 0.0001) than Group 2. Ventilator days were more frequent in Group 1 (653, 66 ± 98.37 h vs. 478, 89 ± 68.92 h, P = 0.128).

Conclusions:

The benzodiazepine-free sedation protocol has been shown to significantly reduce depth of sedation and controlled ventilation. Additional evidence is needed to ascertain reduction of ventilator days which would not only be of benefit for the patient but also for the hospital Management.

National survey and point prevalence study of sedation practice in UK critical care

Background

The present study was designed to (1) establish current sedation practice in UK critical care to inform evidence synthesis and potential future primary research and (2) to compare practice reported via a survey with actual practice assessed in a point prevalence study (PPS).

Methods

UK adult general critical care units were invited to participate in a survey of current sedation practice, and a representative sample of units was invited to participate in a PPS of sedation practice at the patient level. Survey responses were compared with PPS data where both were available.

Results

Survey responses were received from 214 (91 %) of 235 eligible critical care units. Of these respondents, 57 % reported having a written sedation protocol, 94 % having a policy of daily sedation holds and 94 % using a sedation scale to assess depth of sedation. In the PPS, across units reporting a policy of daily sedation holds, a median of 50 % (IQR 33–75 %) of sedated patients were considered for a sedation hold. A median of 88 % (IQR 63–100 %) of patients were assessed using the same sedation scale as reported in the survey. Both the survey and the PPS indicated propofol as the preferred sedative and alfentanil, fentanyl and morphine as the preferred analgesics. In most of the PPS units, all patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice sedative (median across units 100 %, IQR 64–100 %), and a median of 80 % (IQR 67–100 %) of patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice analgesic. Most units (83 %) reported in the survey that sedatives are usually administered in combination with analgesics. Across units that participated in the PPS, 69 % of patients had received a combination of agents – most frequently propofol combined with either alfentanil or fentanyl.

Conclusions

Clinical practice reported in the national survey did not accurately reflect actual clinical practice at the patient level observed in the PPS. Employing a mixed methods approach provided a more complete picture of sedation practice in terms of breadth and depth of information.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1532-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rethinking the intensive care environment: considering nature in nursing practice

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

With consideration of an environmental concept, this paper explores evidence related to the negative impacts of the intensive care unit environment on patient outcomes and explores the potential counteracting benefits of 'nature-based' nursing interventions as a way to improve care outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The impact of the environment in which a patient is nursed has long been recognised as one determinant in patient outcomes. Whilst the contemporary intensive care unit environment contains many features that support the provision of the intensive therapies the patient requires, it can also be detrimental, especially for long-stay patients.

DESIGN

This narrative review considers theoretical and evidence-based literature that supports the adoption of nature-based nursing interventions in intensive care units.

METHODS

Research and theoretical literature from a diverse range of disciplines including nursing, medicine, psychology, architecture and environmental science were considered in relation to patient outcomes and intensive care nursing practice.

CONCLUSION

There are many nature-based interventions that intensive care unit nurses can implement into their nursing practice to counteract environmental stressors. These interventions can also improve the environment for patients' families and nurses.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Intensive care unit nurses must actively consider and manage the environment in which nursing occurs to facilitate the best patient outcomes.

Sedation protocols to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in the ICU: a Cochrane Systematic Review

AIMS

Assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management on the duration of mechanical ventilation and other relevant patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND

Sedation is a core component of critical care. Sub-optimal sedation management incorporates both under- and over-sedation and has been linked to poorer patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LILACS, Current Controlled Trials and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Studies (1990-November 2013) and reference lists of articles were used.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation were included. Two authors screened titles, abstracts and full-text reports. Potential risk of bias was assessed. Clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity were examined and the random-effects model used for meta-analysis where appropriate. Mean difference for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio for mortality, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated.

RESULTS

Two eligible studies with 633 participants comparing protocol-directed sedation delivered by nurses vs. usual care were identified. There was no evidence of differences in duration of mechanical ventilation or hospital mortality. There was statistically significant heterogeneity between studies for duration of mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation as results from the two randomized controlled trials were conflicting.

[A first step towards safer sedation and analgesia: A systematic evaluation of outcomes and level of sedation and analgesia in the mechanically ventilated critically ill patient]

INTRODUCTION

Safe analgesia and sedation strategies are necessary in order to avoid under or over sedation, as well as improving the comfort and safety of critical care patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare and contrast a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation and management of analgesia and sedation in a group of critical care patients on mechanical ventilation with the usual procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort study with contemporary series was conducted in a tertiary care medical-surgical ICU February to November during 2013 and 2014. The inclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation ≥ 24h and use of sedation by continuous infusion. Sedation was monitored using the Richmond agitation-sedation scale or bispectral index, and analgesia were measured using the numeric rating scale, or behavioural indicators of pain scale. The study variables included; mechanical ventilation time, weaning time, ventilation support time, artificial airway time, continuous sedative infusion time, daily dose and frequency of analgesic and sedative drug use, hospital stay, and ICU and hospital mortality, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, bispectral index, numeric rating scale, and behavioural indicators of pain scale measurements. Kruskal Wallis and Chi², and a significance of p<.05 were used.

RESULTS

The study included 153 admissions, 75 pre-intervention and 78 post-intervention, with a mean age of 55.7±13 years old, and 67% men. Both groups showed similarities in age, reason for admission, and APACHE. There were non-significant decreases in mechanical ventilation time 4 (1.4-9.2) and 3.2 (1.4-8.1) days, respectively; p= 0.7, continuous sedative infusion time 6 (3-11) and 5 (3-11) days; p= 0.9, length of hospital stay 29 (18-52); 25 (14-41) days; p= 0.1, ICU mortality (8 vs. 5%; p= 0.4), and hospital mortality (10.6 vs. 9.4%: p= 0.8). Daily doses of midazolam and remifentanil decreased 347 (227-479) mg/day; 261 (159-358) mg/day; p= 0.02 and 2175 (1427-3285) mcg/day; 1500 (715-2740) mcg/day; p= 0.02, respectively. There were increases in the use of remifentanil (32% vs. 51%; p= 0.01), dexmedetomidine (0 vs.6%; p= 0.02), dexketoprofen (60 vs. 76%; p= 0.03), and haloperidol (15 vs.28%; p= 0.04). The use of morphine decreased (71 vs. 54%; p= 0.03). There was an increase in the number of measurements and Richmond agitation-sedation scale scores 6 (3-17); 21 (9-39); p< 0.0001, behavioural indicators of pain scale 6 (3-18); 19(8-33); p< 0.001 and numeric rating scale 4 (2-6); 8 (6-17); p< 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation of analgesia and sedation management achieved an improvement in monitoring and adequacy of dose to patient needs, leading to improved outcomes.

Perceptions and practices regarding delirium, sedation and analgesia in critically ill patients: a narrative review

A significant number of landmark studies have been published in the last decade that increase the current knowledge on sedation for critically ill patients. Therefore, many practices that were considered standard of care are now outdated. Oversedation has been shown to be hazardous, and light sedation and no-sedation protocols are associated with better patient outcomes. Delirium is increasingly recognized as a major form of acute brain dysfunction that is associated with higher mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation and longer lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Despite all the available evidence, translating research into bedside care is a daunting task. International surveys have shown that practices such as sedation interruption and titration are performed only in the minority of cases. Implementing best practices is a major challenge that must also be addressed in the new guidelines. In this review, we summarize the findings of sedation and delirium research over the last years. We also discuss the gap between evidence and clinical practice and highlight ways to implement best practices at the bedside.

Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

The sedation needs of critically ill patients have been recognized as a core component of critical care and meeting these is vital to assist recovery and ensure humane treatment. There is growing evidence to suggest that sedation requirements are not always optimally managed. Sub-optimal sedation incorporates both under- and over-sedation and has been linked to both short-term (e.g. length of stay) and long-term (e.g. psychological recovery) outcomes. Various strategies have been proposed to improve sedation management and address aspects of assessment as well as delivery of sedation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management on the duration of mechanical ventilation and other relevant patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We looked at various outcomes and examined the role of bias in order to examine the level of evidence for this intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (2013; Issue 11), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1990 to November 2013), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1990 to November 2013), CINAHL (BIREME host) (1990 to November 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (1990 to November 2013), LILACS (1990 to November 2013), Current Controlled Trials and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Studies (1990 to November 2013), and reference lists of articles. We re-ran the search in October 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult ICUs comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two eligible studies with 633 participants. Both included studies compared the use of protocol-directed sedation, specifically protocols delivered by nurses, with usual care. We rated the risk of selection bias due to random sequence generation low for one study and unclear for one study. The risk of selection bias related to allocation concealment was low for both studies. We also assessed detection and attrition bias as low for both studies while we considered performance bias high due to the inability to blind participants and clinicians in both studies. Risk due to other sources of bias, such as potential for contamination between groups and reporting bias, was considered unclear. There was no clear evidence of differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -5.74 hours, 95% CI -62.01 to 50.53, low quality evidence), ICU length of stay (MD -0.62 days, 95% CI -2.97 to 1.73) and hospital length of stay (MD -3.78 days, 95% CI -8.54 to 0.97) between people being managed with protocol-directed sedation versus usual care. Similarly, there was no clear evidence of difference in hospital mortality between the two groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.31, low quality evidence). ICU mortality was only reported in one study preventing pooling of data. There was no clear evidence of difference in the incidence of tracheostomy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.89). The studies reported few adverse event outcomes; one study reported self extubation while the other study reported re-intubation; given this difference in outcomes, pooling of data was not possible. There was significant heterogeneity between studies for duration of mechanical ventilation (I(2) = 86%, P value = 0.008), ICU length of stay (I(2) = 82%, P value = 0.02) and incidence of tracheostomy (I(2) = 76%, P value = 0.04), with one study finding a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and incidence of tracheostomy and the other study finding no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation. Results from the two RCTs were conflicting, resulting in the quality of the body of evidence as a whole being assessed as low. Further studies, taking into account contextual and clinician characteristics in different ICU environments, are necessary to inform future practice. Methodological strategies to reduce the risk of bias need to be considered in future studies.

Clinician perspectives on protocols designed to minimize sedation

PURPOSE

Within a multicenter randomized trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily interruption (DI), we sought perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians regarding each strategy.

METHODS

At 5 ICUs, we administered a questionnaire daily to nurses and physicians, asking whether they liked using the assigned strategy, reasons for their responses, and concerns regarding DI.

RESULTS

A total of 301 questionnaires were completed, for 31 patients (15 protocol only and 16 DI); 117 (59 physicians and 58 nurses) were the first questionnaire completed by that health care provider for that patient and were included in analyses. Most respondents liked using the assigned strategy (81% protocol only and 81% DI); more physicians than nurses liked DI (100% vs 61%; P < .001). Most common reasons for liking the assigned sedation strategy were better neurologic assessment (70% DI), ease of use (58% protocol only), and improved patient outcomes (51% protocol only and 44% DI). Only 19% of clinicians disliked the assigned sedation strategy (equal numbers for protocol only and DI). Respondents' concerns during DI were respiratory compromise (61%), pain (48%), agitation (45%), and device removal (26%). More questionnaires from nurses than physicians expressed concerns about DI.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents liked both sedation strategies. Nurses and physicians had different preferences and rationales for liking or disliking each strategy.

The validity, reliability, responsiveness and applicability of observation sedation-scoring instruments for use with adult patients in the emergency department: a systematic literature review

AIM

This paper reports a systematic literature review examining the range of published observational sedation-scoring instruments available in the assessment, monitoring and titration of continuous intravenous sedation to critically ill adult patients in the Emergency Department, and the extent to which validity, reliability, responsiveness and applicability of the instruments has been addressed.

BACKGROUND

Emergency nurses are increasingly responsible for the ongoing assessment, monitoring and titration of continuous intravenous sedation, in addition to analgesia for the critically ill adult patient. One method to optimise patient sedation is to use a validated observational sedation-scoring tool. It is not clear however what the optimal instrument available is for use in this clinical context.

METHODS

A systematic literature review methodology was employed. A range of electronic databases were searched for the period 1946-2013. Search terms incorporated "sedation scale", "sedation scoring system", "measuring sedation", and "sedation tool" and were used to retrieve relevant literature. In addition, manual searches were conducted and articles retrieved from those listed in key papers. Articles were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) making sense of evidence tools.

RESULTS

A total of 27 observational sedation-scoring instruments were identified. Sedation-scoring instruments can be categorised as linear or composite, the former being the most common. A wide variety of patient behaviours are used within the instruments to measure depth and quality of patient sedation. Typically sedation-scoring instruments incorporated three patient behaviours, which were then rated to generate a numerical score. The majority of the instruments have been subjected to validity and reliability testing, however few have been examined for responsiveness or applicability.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the 27 observational sedation-scoring instruments were designed or trialled within ED. The Richmond Agitation and Assessment Scale was identified as most suitable to be trialled prospectively within an Australian ED.

Suppression of phagosome proteolysis and Matrigel migration with the α2-adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine in murine dendritic cells

Dexmedetomidine is a highly-selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for sedation of critically ill patients in an intensive care setting. Dendritic cells (DCs) in peripheral tissues sense certain foreign antigens and ingest and process them, while migrating to the regional lymph node. Then, DCs present the processed antigen on their surface to stimulate the clonal proliferation of cognitive lymphocytes, leading to the establishment of adaptive immunity. In murine bone marrow-derived DCs, dexmedetomidine significantly delayed the intracellular proteolytic degradation of ovalbumin, while it did not affect phagocytosis, decreased the expression of the surface molecules I-A(b) and CD86, and suppressed cognitive helper T-cell proliferation. Furthermore, dexmedetomidine significantly suppressed DC migration both in vitro, using a Matrigel migration assay, and in vivo, using a foot pad-popliteal lymph node migration assay, which may be ascribed to the inhibition of type IV collagenase/gelatinase activity. Finally, vaccination with dexmedetomidine-treated DCs significantly suppressed the contact hypersensitivity reaction in vivo. These results indicate that dexmedetomidine may suppress immunity by inhibiting DC antigen processing/presentation and migration.

Reducing deep sedation and delirium in acute lung injury patients: a quality improvement project

OBJECTIVE

Deep sedation and delirium are common in the ICU. Mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury are at especially high risk for deep sedation, delirium, and associated long-term physical and neuropsychiatric impairments. We undertook an ICU-wide structured quality improvement project to decrease sedation and delirium.

DESIGN

Prospective quality improvement project in comparison with a retrospective acute lung injury control group.

SETTING

Sixteen-bed medical ICU in an academic teaching hospital with pre-existing use of goal-directed sedation with daily interruption of sedative infusions.

PATIENTS

Consecutive acute lung injury patients.

INTERVENTION

A "4Es" framework (engage, educate, execute, evaluate) was used as part of the quality improvement process. A new sedation protocol was created and implemented, which recommends a target Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score of 0 (alert and calm) and requires failure of intermittent sedative dosing prior to starting continuous infusions. In addition, twice-daily delirium screening using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was introduced into routine practice.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sedative use and delirium status in acute lung injury patients after implementation of the quality improvement project (n = 82) were compared with a historical control group (n = 120). During the quality improvement vs. control periods, use of narcotic and benzodiazepine infusions were substantially lower (median proportion of medical ICU days per patient: 33% vs. 74%, and 22% vs. 70%, respectively, both p < 0.001). Further, wakefulness increased (median Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score per patient: -1.5 vs. -4.0, p < 0.001), and days awake and not delirious increased (median proportion of medical ICU days per patient: 19% vs. 0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Through a structured quality improvement process, use of sedative infusions can be substantially decreased and days awake without delirium significantly increased, even in severely ill, mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury.

The association between sedation practices and duration of mechanical ventilation in intensive care

Choice of sedation agent may influence duration of mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a retrospective observational analysis of 2102 consecutive mechanically ventilated ICU patients over an eight-year period at a Melbourne metropolitan hospital with a ten-bed general ICU to determine if propofol was associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) than midazolam. Data were extracted from the hospital administrative database, pharmacy supply order records and ICU database, to calculate rates of MV and tracheostomy, length-of-stay, propofol and midazolam infusion doses, illness severity and casemix and use of 'sedation scores' and 'sedation break' respectively. The primary end-points were duration of MV, tracheostomy rate and hospital outcome. Negative binomial regression and logistic regression were used to identify temporal trends. From 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2010 there were 5751 ICU admissions including 2102 (36.6%) with MV. Over this period there was a 70% decline in annual midazolam use and a greater than fivefold rise in propofol use. 'Sedation scoring' and 'sedation break' procedures were introduced from 2006. Over the eight-year observation period there were significant increases in the numbers of annual MV admissions and long-term (>96 hours) MV patients, but a decline in median duration of MV, tracheostomy rate, median ICU length-of-stay and median hospital length-of-stay. All temporal trends were significant (P <0.05). The temporal association with changes in sedation management practice, including primary sedative agent choice during MV, may explain these findings.

Sedation in neurological intensive care unit

Analgesia and sedation has been widely used in intensive care units where iatrogenic discomfort often complicates patient management. In neurological patients maximal comfort without diminishing patient responsiveness is desirable. In these patients successful management of sedation and analgesia incorporates a patient based approach that includes detection and management of predisposing and causative factors, including delirium, monitoring using sedation scales, proper medication selection, emphasis on analgesia based drugs and incorporation of protocols or algorithms. So, to optimize care clinician should be familiar with the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables that can affect the safety and efficacy of analgesics and sedatives.

Perceived versus actual sedation practices in adult intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

With drug shortages, newer sedative medications, and updates in research, management of sedation and delirium in patients receiving mechanical ventilation continues to evolve.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perceived and actual sedation practices for adults receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, 2-part study conducted in adult ICUs in US hospitals. It included a sedation practice survey completed by ICU pharmacists and an observational study evaluating actual sedation practices over a 24-hour period.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed for 85 ICUs; observational data for 496 patients were collected. Preferred sedatives from the survey data were propofol (short-term); propofol, midazolam, or lorazepam (intermediate); and lorazepam (long-term). Propofol was the most commonly used agent overall during the observational period (primarily for short-term and intermediate-length sedation); midazolam was the most commonly used for long-term sedation. Fentanyl was the preferred analgesic, and haloperidol and quetiapine were the preferred antipsychotics. Sedation treatment algorithms were used in only 50% of observed ICUs. Use of daily interruption of sedation was perceived to be 66% but was only observed in 36% of patients. Monitoring for delirium was reported among 25% of those surveyed but was observed in only 10% of patients. Targeted sedation goals were most frequently achieved when a treatment algorithm was used or when an opiate infusion was the single agent used for sedative management.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest differences in perceived and actual sedation practice in the US, as well as underutilization of evidence-based interventions. Most notable was the limited use of sedation treatment algorithms, daily interruption of sedation, and monitoring for delirium. Individual sedation and delirium protocols should be evaluated and updated based on evidence-based recommendations.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of an institutional daily awakening and spontaneous breathing trial protocol: a quality improvement project

INTRODUCTION

While one controlled trial found that a daily awakening and spontaneous breathing trial (DA-SBT) decreases time on mechanical ventilation (MV), there is a paucity of real-world data surrounding the development, implementation, and impact of DA-SBT protocols. We describe a multidisciplinary process improvement effort in 2, 10-bed medical intensive care units (MICUs) at a 330-bed academic medical center that focused on the development, implementation, and evaluation of a new DA-SBT protocol.

METHODS

A DA-SBT protocol, developed using results from a nursing survey literature and available institutional resources, was implemented after extensive clinician education and institution of quality reminders to boost use. Postprotocol compliance was evaluated. Use of sedation, DA and SBT practices, and clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared between the before and after DA-SBT protocol groups (ie, consecutive MICU patients requiring a continuously infused sedative [CIS] ≥24 hours).

RESULTS

In the after group (n = 32), the DA and SBT compliances were 44% and 84%, respectively. Compared with the before group (n = 33), after group patients received CIS on fewer days of MV (100% vs 67%, P = .003) and had their CIS down-titrated by ≥25% on more days of CIS (40% vs 71%, P = .006). Neither total CIS dose (P = .49), total MV days (P = .75), days of MV where a SBT occurred (P = .38), nor episodes of self-extubation (15% vs 6%, P = .43) differed between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the implementation of a DA-SBT protocol that was individualized to clinician preferences and institutional resources and accompanied by substantial education and reminders for use, compliance to the DA component of this protocol was low and duration of MV remained unchanged. Additional quality improvement strategies are needed to overcome barriers to DA-SBT protocol use that may not exist in controlled clinical trials.

Sleep disturbances and sedation practices in the intensive care unit--a postal survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with possible serious consequences.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to get insight into sleeping and sedation practices in the adult ICUs in the Netherlands and survey which factors are important with respect to sleep in critically ill patients in the ICU.

METHOD

A multi-centre, exploratory survey sent via mail to nurse managers of all adult ICUs in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

Interventions without medication to improve the sleep of the critically ill patients were mostly defined as keeping patients awake during the day (94.2%), reducing noise of the ICU staff (89.7%) and reducing nursing interventions at night (86.8%). None of the ICUs used a sleep questionnaire. Nursing autonomy regarding sleep and sedation practices for patients (rated on a 10-point numerical scale) was judged as moderate (median 5, interquartile range (IQR) 3-7). How often nursing observations influence sleeping practices in the ICU was judged as good (median 8, IQR 7-8). How the average ICU patient was sleeping was judged as moderately well (median 6, IQR 5-7). Most intensive care units (83.8%) did not have a sleeping protocol, but 67.6% of these intensive care units suggested they should implement a sleeping protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

The average critically ill patient has sleep disturbances, that is, is sleeping moderately well according to nurses' views and opinions, mostly due to a disturbed sleep-awake cycle, delirium and nursing interventions. Intensive care nurses perceive only a moderate feeling of autonomy and influence regarding the management of sleeping practices.

Current sedation practices: lessons learned from international surveys

Limitations are inherent to surveys. Most surveys have low response rates, which raises the issue of responder bias. Another limitation of self-report surveys stems from the possible differences between stated and actual practice. That is, what physicians report that they do in surveys often contrasts significantly with what they do in observational studies, as highlighted by the Canadian surveys conducted in 2002 and 2008. Some surveys report estimates provided by ICU nurse managers or physician directors, potentially resulting in inaccurate estimates or data reflecting the individuals practice rather than the entire ICU. Surveys may not reflect how different specialists practice; for example, the German surveys collected data only in ICUs run by anesthesiologists.Notwithstanding these limitations, surveys provide a wealth of information on current practice and determinants of practice, and serve as a useful tool to guide future research and educational interventions. The authors identified substantial international variation in the use of sedative and analgesic drugs, and marked changes over the last 10 years. Overall, there is a trend toward lighter sedation, along with a shift from benzodiazepines toward propofol, and from morphine toward fentanyl and remifentanil. Despite the publication of numerous studies and guidelines for sedation and analgesia, actual practice differs from recommended practice, suggesting that the impact of clinical trials and guidelines on physician practice is quite low. It is clear that there remain substantial barriers to the incorporation of sedation scales, protocols,and daily interruption into routine ICU care.

Critical Illness Outcome Study: An Observational Study on Protocols and Mortality in Intensive Care Units

INTRODUCTION

Many individual Intensive Care Unit (ICU) characteristics have been associated with patient outcomes, including staffing, expertise, continuity and team structure. Separately, many aspects of clinical care in ICUs have been operationalized through the development of complex treatment protocols. The United State Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group-Critical Illness Outcomes Study (USCIITG-CIOS) was designed to determine whether the extent of protocol availability and use in ICUs is associated with hospital survival in a large cohort of United States ICUs. Here, we describe the study protocol and analysis plan approved by the USCIITG-CIOS Steering Committee.

METHODS

USCIITG-CIOS is a prospective, observational, ecological multi-centered "cohort" study of mixed ICUs in the U.S. The data collected include organizational information for the ICU (e.g., protocol availability and utilization, multi-disciplinary staffing assessment) and patient level information (e.g. demographics, acute and chronic medical conditions). The primary outcome is all-cause hospital mortality, with the objective being to determine whether there is an association between protocol number and hospital mortality for ICU patients. USCIITG-CIOS is powered to detect a 3% difference in crude hospital mortality between high and low protocol use ICUs, dichotomized according to protocol number at the median. The analysis will utilize regression modeling to adjust for outcome clustering by ICU, with secondary linear analysis of protocol number and mortality and a variety of a priori planned ancillary studies. There are presently 60 ICUs participating in USCIITG-CIOS to enroll approximately 6,000 study subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

USCIITG-CIOS is a large multicentric study examining the effect of ICU protocol use on patient outcomes. The primary results of this study will inform our understanding of the relationship between protocol availability, use, and patient outcomes in the ICU. Moreover, given the shortage of intensivists worldwide, the results of USCIITG-CIOS can be used to promote more effective ICU and care team design and will impact the delivery of intensive care services beyond individual practitioners.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01109719.