Kathleen Puntillo

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Objective:To revise the “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult” published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. Methods:The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks® database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (–) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention’s desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase “We recommend …” is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase “We suggest …” is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. Conclusion:These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Intensive care unit quality improvement: A "how-to" guide for the interdisciplinary team*

Objective:Quality improvement is an important activity for all members of the interdisciplinary critical care team. Although an increasing number of resources are available to guide clinicians, quality improvement activities can be overwhelming. Therefore, the Society of Critical Care Medicine charged this Outcomes Task Force with creating a “how-to” guide that focuses on critical care, summarizes key concepts, and outlines a practical approach to the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of an interdisciplinary quality improvement program in the intensive care unit. Data Sources and Methods:The task force met in person twice and by conference call twice to write this document. We also conducted a literature search on “quality improvement” and “critical care or intensive care” and searched online for additional resources. Data Synthesis and Overview:We present an overview of quality improvement in the intensive care unit setting and then describe the following steps for initiating or improving an interdisciplinary critical care quality improvement program: a) identify local motivation, support teamwork, and develop strong leadership; b) prioritize potential projects and choose the first target; c) operationalize the measures, build support for the project, and develop a business plan; d) perform an environmental scan to better understand the problem, potential barriers, opportunities, and resources for the project; e) create a data collection system that accurately measures baseline performance and future improvements; f) create a data reporting system that allows clinicians and others to understand the problem; g) introduce effective strategies to change clinician behavior. In addition, we identify four steps for evaluating and maintaining this program: a) determine whether the target is changing with periodic data collection; b) modify behavior change strategies to improve or sustain improvements; c) focus on interdisciplinary collaboration; and d) develop and sustain support from the hospital leadership. We also identify a number of online resources to complement this overview. Conclusions:This Society of Critical Care Medicine Task Force report provides an overview for clinicians interested in developing or improving a quality improvement program using a step-wise approach. Success depends not only on committed interdisciplinary work that is incremental and continuous but also on strong leadership. Further research is needed to refine the methods and identify the most cost-effective means of improving the quality of health care received by critically ill patients and their families.

Pain behaviors observed during six common procedures: Results from Thunder Project Ii*

ObjectivePatients frequently display behaviors during procedures that may be pain related. Clinicians often rely on the patient’s demonstration of behaviors as a cue to presence of pain. The purpose of this study was to identify specific pain-related behaviors and factors that predict the degree of behavioral responses during the following procedures: turning, central venous catheter insertion, wound drain removal, wound care, tracheal suctioning, and femoral sheath removal. DesignProspective, descriptive study. SettingMultiple units in 169 hospitals in United States, Canada, England, and Australia. PatientsA total of 5,957 adult patients who underwent one of the six procedures. InterventionsNone. Measurements and Main ResultsA 30-item behavior observation tool was used to note patients’ behaviors before and during a procedure. By comparing behaviors exhibited before and during the procedure as well as behaviors in those with and without procedural pain (as noted on a 0–10 numeric rating scale), we identified specific procedural pain behaviors: grimacing, rigidity, wincing, shutting of eyes, verbalization, moaning, and clenching of fists. On average, there were significantly more behaviors exhibited by patients with vs. without procedural pain (3.5 vs. 1.8 behaviors; t = 38.3, df = 5072.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–1.8). Patients with procedural pain were at least three times more likely to have increased behavioral responses than patients without procedural pain. A simultaneous regression model determined that 33% of the variance in amount of pain behaviors exhibited during a procedure was explained by three factors: degree of procedural pain intensity, degree of procedural distress, and undergoing the turning procedure. ConclusionsBecause of the strong relationship between procedural pain and behavioral responses, clinicians can use behavioral responses of verbal and nonverbal patients to plan for, implement, and evaluate analgesic interventions.

End-of-life care for the critically ill: A national intensive care unit survey.

Objective:One in five Americans dies following treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and evidence indicates the need to improve end-of-life care for ICU patients. We conducted this study to elicit the views and experiences of ICU directors regarding barriers to optimal end-of-life care and to identify the type, availability, and perceived benefit of specific strategies that may improve this care. Design:Self-administered mail survey. Setting:Six hundred intensive care units. Participants:A random, nationally representative sample of nursing and physician directors of 600 adult ICUs in the United States. Interventions:Mail survey. Measurements and Main Results:We asked participants about barriers to end-of-life care (1 = huge to 5 = not at all a barrier), perceived benefit of strategies to improve end-of-life care, and availability of these strategies. From 468 ICUs (78.0% of sample), 590 ICU directors participated (406 nurses [65.1% response] and 184 physicians [31.7% response]). Respondents had a mean of 16.6 yrs (sd 7.6 yrs) of ICU experience. Important barriers to better end-of-life care included patient/family factors, including unrealistic patient/family expectations 2.5 (1.0), inability of patients to participate in discussions 2.7 (0.9), and lack of advance directives 2.9 (1.0); clinician factors, which included insufficient physician training in communication 2.9 (1.1) and competing demands on physicians’ time 3.0 (1.1); and institution/ICU factors, such as suboptimal space for family meetings 3.5 (1.2) and lack of a palliative care service 3.4 (1.2). More than 80% of respondents rated 14 of 14 strategies as likely to improve end-of-life care, including trainee role modeling by experienced clinicians, clinician training in communication and symptom management, regular meetings of senior clinicians with families, bereavement programs, and end-of-life care quality monitoring. However, few of these strategies were widely available. Conclusions:Intensive care unit directors perceive important barriers to optimal end-of-life care but also universally endorse many practical strategies for quality improvement. LEARNING OBJECTIVESOn completion of this article, the reader should be able to: Describe barriers to improved end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. List strategies that are likely to improve end-of-life care. Use this information in the clinical setting. All authors have disclosed that they have no financial relationships with or interests in any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity. Lippincott CME Institute, Inc., has identified and resolved all faculty conflicts of interest regarding this educational activity. Visit the Critical Care Medicine Web site (www.ccmjournal.org) for information on obtaining continuing medical education credit.

Pain: its mediators and associated morbidity in critically ill cardiovascular surgical patients.

This study was conducted to determine the effects of age, sex, personality adjustment, and analgesic administration on the magnitude of pain experienced by 74 cardiac and abdominal vascular surgical patients during their first few postoperative days. The relationship of pain magnitude to postoperative complications was also examined. Pain intensity was moderate and did not diminish over the first few postoperative days. Physical sensations and emotional tension associated with pain caused little distress. The primary consistent mediator of pain magnitude after surgery was the amount of analgesics administered to patients, although they received small amounts. Neither age nor personality adjustment influenced the magnitude of any pain dimension. However, women and patients having abdominal vascular surgery reported more disturbing physical sensations associated with their pain. Patients with greater pain intensity had a significantly greater incidence of atelectasis as a postoperative complication.

Communication between physicians and nurses as a target for improving end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: challenges and opportunities for moving forward.

Our objective was to discuss obstacles and barriers to effective communication and collaboration regarding end-of-life issues between intensive care unit nurses and physicians. To evaluate practical interventions for improving communication and collaboration, we undertook a systematic literature review. An increase in shared decision making can result from a better understanding and respect for the perspectives and burdens felt by other caregivers. Intensive care unit nurses value their contributions to end-of-life decision making and want to have a more active role. Increased collaboration and communication can result in more appropriate care and increased physician/nurse, patient, and family satisfaction. Recommendations for improvement in communication between intensive care unit physicians and nurses include use of joint grand rounds, patient care seminars, and interprofessional dialogues. Communication interventions such as use of daily rounds forms, communication training, and a collaborative practice model have shown positive results. When communication is clear and constructive and practice is truly collaborative, the end-of-life care provided to intensive care unit patients and families by satisfied and engaged professionals will improve markedly.

Models for structuring a clinical initiative to enhance palliative care in the intensive care unit: A report from the IPAL-ICU Project (Improving Palliative Care in the ICU)

Objective:To describe models used in successful clinical initiatives to improve the quality of palliative care in critical care settings. Data Sources:We searched the MEDLINE database from inception to April 2010 for all English language articles using the terms “intensive care,” “critical care,” or “ICU” and “palliative care”; we also hand-searched reference lists and author files. Based on review and synthesis of these data and the experiences of our interdisciplinary expert Advisory Board, we prepared this consensus report. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We critically reviewed the existing data with a focus on models that have been used to structure clinical initiatives to enhance palliative care for critically ill patients in intensive care units and their families. Conclusions:There are two main models for intensive care unit-palliative care integration: 1) the “consultative model,” which focuses on increasing the involvement and effectiveness of palliative care consultants in the care of intensive care unit patients and their families, particularly those patients identified as at highest risk for poor outcomes; and 2) the “integrative model,” which seeks to embed palliative care principles and interventions into daily practice by the intensive care unit team for all patients and families facing critical illness. These models are not mutually exclusive but rather represent the ends of a spectrum of approaches. Choosing an overall approach from among these models should be one of the earliest steps in planning an intensive care unit-palliative care initiative. This process entails a careful and realistic assessment of available resources, attitudes of key stakeholders, structural aspects of intensive care unit care, and patterns of local practice in the intensive care unit and hospital. A well-structured intensive care unit-palliative care initiative can provide important benefits for patients, families, and providers.

Sleep and delirium in ICU patients: a review of mechanisms and manifestations

Sleep deprivation and delirium are conditions commonly encountered in intensive care unit patients. Sleep in these patients is characterized by sleep fragmentation, an increase in light sleep, and a decrease of both slow wave sleep and rapid eye movement sleep. The most common types of delirium in this population are hypoactive and mixed-type. Knowledge about the mechanisms of sleep and delirium has evolved over time, but these phenomena are not yet well understood. What is known, however, is that different areas in the brainstem transmit information to the thalamus and cortex necessary for sleep–wake regulation. Delirium is related to an imbalance in the synthesis, release, and inactivation of some neurotransmitters, particularly acetylcholine and dopamine. The relationship between sleep deprivation and delirium has been studied for many years and has been viewed as reciprocal. The link between them may be ascribed to shared mechanisms. An imbalance in neurotransmitters as well as alteration of melatonin production may contribute to the pathogenesis of both phenomena. A better understanding of the mechanisms and factors that contribute to sleep deprivation and delirium can guide the development of new methods and models for prevention and treatment of these problems and consequently improve patient outcomes.

Symptom experiences of family members of intensive care unit patients at high risk for dying

Objective:To describe the symptom experiences of family members of patients at high risk for dying in the intensive care unit and to assess risk factors associated with higher symptom burden. Design:Prospective, cross-sectional study. Setting:Three intensive care units at a large academic medical center. Participants:A sample of 74 family members of 74 intensive care unit patients who had a grave prognosis and were judged to be at high risk for dying. Patients at high risk for dying were identified as having Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >20, an intensive care unit length of stay >72 hrs, and being mechanically ventilated. Interventions:None. Measurements and Results:We assessed the degree of symptom burden approximately 4 days after the patients admission to the intensive care unit in the following domains: traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression. Overall, the prevalence of symptoms was high, with more than half (57%) of family members having moderate to severe levels of traumatic stress, 80% having borderline symptoms of anxiety, and 70% having borderline symptoms of depression. More than 80% of family members had other physical and emotional symptoms, such as fatigue, sadness, and fear, and these were experienced at the moderate to severe levels of distress. Factors independently associated with greater severity of symptoms included younger age, female gender, and non-white race of the family member. The only patient factor significantly associated with symptom severity was younger age. Despite their symptom experience, the majority of the family members were coping at moderate to high levels and functioning at high levels during the intensive care unit experience. Conclusions:We document a high prevalence of psychological and physical symptoms among family members during an intensive care unit admission. These data complement existing data on long-term symptom burden and highlight the need to improve family centered care in intensive care units.

Pain Management Principles in the Critically Ill

This article addresses conventional pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of pain in patients in ICUs. For the critically ill patient, opioids have been the mainstay of pain control. The optimal choice of opioid and dosing regimen for a specific patient varies depending on factors such as the pharmacokinetics and physicochemical characteristics of an opioid and the bodys handling of the opioid, concomitant sedative regimen, potential or actual adverse drug events, and development of tolerance. The clinician must appreciate that favorable pharmacokinetic properties such as a short-elimination half-life do not necessarily translate into clinical advantages in the ICU setting. A variety of medications have been proposed as alternatives or adjuncts to the opioids for pain control that have unique considerations when contemplated for use in the critically ill patient. Most have been relatively unstudied in the ICU setting, and many have limitations with respect to availability of the GI route of administration in patients with questionable GI absorptive function. Nonpharmacologic, complementary therapies are low cost, easy to provide, and safe, and many clinicians can implement them with little difficulty or resources. However, the evidence base for their effectiveness is limited. At present, insufficient research evidence is available to support a broad implementation of nonpharmacologic therapies in ICUs.