Sedation Practices and Preferences of Turkish Intensive Care Physicians: A National Survey

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Design

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

Settings

General adult intensive care units.

Participants

Health care professionals working in adult intensive care units.

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Tweetable abstract

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

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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of propofol versus midazolam sedation in adult intensive care (ICU) patients

PURPOSE

Compare outcomes of adult patients admitted to ICU- length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation (MV), and time until extubation- according to the use of propofol versus midazolam.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases to retrieve RCTs that compared propofol and midazolam used as sedatives in adult ICU patients. We applied a random-effects, meta-analytic model in all calculations. We applied the Cochrane collaboration tool and GRADE. We separated patients into two groups: acute surgical patients (hospitalization up to 24 h) and critically-ill patients (hospitalization over 24 h and whose articles mostly mix surgical, medical and trauma patients).

RESULTS

Globally, propofol was associated with a reduced MV time of 4.46 h (MD: -4.46 [95% CI -7.51 to -1.42] p = 0.004, I2 = 63%, 6 studies) and extubation time of 7.95 h (MD: -7.95 [95% CI -9.86 to -6.03] p < 0.00001, I2 = 98%, 16 studies). Acute surgical patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced ICU stay of 5.07 h (MD: -5.07 [95% CI -8.68 to -1.45] p = 0.006, I2 = 41%, 5 studies), MV time of 4.28 h (MD: -4.28; [95% CI -4.62 to -3.94] p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, 3 studies), extubation time of 1.92 h (MD: -1.92; [95% CI -2.71 to -1.13] p = 0.00001, I2 = 89%, 9 studies). In critically-ill patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced extubation time of 32.68 h (MD: -32.68 [95% CI -48.37 to -16.98] p = 0.0001, I2 = 97%, 9 studies). GRADE was very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol compared to midazolam is associated with improved clinical outcomes in ICU, with reduced ICU stay MV time and extubation time in acute surgical patients and reduced extubation time in critically-ill patients.

Treatment of benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome in a severe traumatic brain injury patient

Prolonged exposure to benzodiazepines (BDZ) may contribute towards physical dependence, which is manifested by iatrogenic Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndrome (BWS), a condition often underdiagnosed. Current evidence recommends precluding BDZ infusion as sedation in the intensive care unit to avoid possible withdrawal and delirium issues. Administration of dexmedetomidine should be considered to facilitate weaning in patients with BWS.

Opioid and Benzodiazepine Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome in Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome is an increasingly recognized issue among adult patients in the intensive care unit. The prolonged use of opioids and benzodiazepines during the intensive care unit stay and preexisting disorders associated with their use put patients at risk of developing iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Although research to date is scant regarding iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in adult patients in the intensive care unit, it is important to recognize and adequately manage iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in order to prevent possible negative outcomes during and after a patient's intensive care unit stay. This article discusses in depth 8 studies of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome among adult patients in the intensive care unit. It also addresses important aspects of opioid and benzodiazepine iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, including prevalence, risk factors, and assessment and considers its prevention and management.