Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce physical restraints in critical care units

Physical restraint use in critical care units is a frequent low-value care practice influenced by numerous factors creating a local culture. The translation of evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice is scarce so, the analysis of interventions to de-adopt this practice is needed. This update aims to describe and identify nonpharmacological interventions that contribute to minimising the use of physical restraints in adult critically ill patients. Interventions are classified into two groups: those that include education alone and those that combine training with one or more components (multicomponent interventions). These components include less restrictive restraint alternatives, use of physical and cognitive stimulation, decision support tools, institutional multidisciplinary committees, and team involvement. The heterogeneity in the design of the programmes and the low quality of the evidence of the interventions do not allow us to establish recommendations on their effectiveness. However, multicomponent interventions including training, physical and cognitive stimulation of the patient and a culture change of professionals and the organisations towards making restraints visible might be the most effective. The implementation of these programmes should underpin on a prior analysis of each local context to design the most effective-tailored combination of interventions to help reduce or eliminate them from clinical practice.

[Use of isoflurane as treatment for super-refractory status epilepticus]

INTRODUCTION

Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is a neurological condition with an important morbidity and mortality rate, for which few therapeutic options are available. Inhalation sedation with isoflurane is currently a compassionate-use treatment in Spanish intensive care units. Little has been written about its usefulness in the treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus, but it appears to be a useful and safe therapeutic alternative for this condition.

CASE REPORTS

This article reviews three cases of SRSE treated with isoflurane. The capacity of isoflurane to control seizures was assessed by electroencephalographic monitoring. Other variables assessed were time to seizure control, survival, functional outcome and occurrence of complications secondary to isoflurane. In the three cases reviewed, isoflurane proved to be effective for seizure control in patients affected by SRSE. Seizure control was accomplished quickly and the minimum dose required to obtain a burst-suppression pattern was titrated easily and rapidly. Despite controlling epilepsy, high mortality was observed (66.66%). This is explained by both the mortality of SRSE and the underlying pathologies of the patients who died. The use of isoflurane did not give rise to any complications.

CONCLUSION

With the results obtained, it is feasible to think that the use of isoflurane is not related to lesions in the central nervous system reported in other articles, and this treatment can be considered effective and safe for the control of SRSE.

Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD

AIMS

Main aim: To determine the Spanish intensive care units (ICU) that assess and record pain levels, sedation/agitation, delirium and the use of physical restraint (PR) as standard practice. Secondary aims: To determine the use of validated assessment tools and to explore patients' levels of pain and sedation/agitation, the prevalence of delirium, and the use of PR.

METHOD

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study using an ad hoc survey with online access that consisted of 2 blocks. Block I: with questions on the unit's characteristics and routine practice; Block II: aspects of direct care and direct assessments of patients admitted to participating units.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight units and 1574 patients participated. The pain of communicative patients (CP) was assessed and recorded as standard in 109 units (69%), the pain of non-communicative patients (NCP) in 84 (53%), sedation/agitation in 111 (70%), and delirium in 39 units (25%). There was recorded use of PR in 39 units (25%). Validated scales were used to assess the pain of CP in 139 units (88%), of NCP in 102 (65%), sedation/agitation in 145 (92%), delirium in 53 units (34%). In 33 units (21%) pain, sedation/agitation and delirium of PC and NPC was assessed, and in 8 of these units there was a specific PR protocol and register. Among the patients who could be assessed, an absence of pain was reported in 57%, moderate pain in 27%; 48% were calm and collaborative, and 10% agitated; 21% had PR, and 12.6% of the patients had delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of pain, sedation and delirium is demonstrated, and low percentages of agitation and delirium achieved. We observed a high percentage of patients with pain, and moderate use of PC. We should generalise the use of protocols to assess, prevent and treat pain and delirium by appropriately managing analgesia, sedation, and individual and well-considered use of PC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874).