Search

Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the assessment and management of pain in the critical care setting, the prevalence of acute pain remains high. Inadequate pain management is associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, reduced capacity for rehabilitation and long-term psychological sequelae. This study aimed to describe the experiences of pain management from healthcare professionals working in intensive care units. Healthcare professionals were recruited from intensive care units in London, UK using a purposive sampling technique. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis technique. Thirty participants were recruited from eight diverse intensive care units. Five themes were identified. First, there was a lack of consensus in pain assessment in the ICU where nursing staff described more knowledge and confidence of validated pain measures than physicians, and concerns over validity and usability were raised. Second, there was a universal perception of resource availability impacting the quality of pain management including high clinical workload, staff turnover and availability of certain pain management techniques. Third, acknowledgement of the importance of pain management was highest in those with experience of interacting with critical care survivors. Fourth, participants described their own emotional reaction to managing those in pain which influenced their learning. Finally, there was a perception that, due to the complexity of the intensive care unit population, pain was de-prioritised and there were conflicting views as to whether standardised analgosedation algorithms were useful. This study provides evidence to suggest interdisciplinary training, collaboratively designed decision-making tools, prioritisation initiatives and research priorities are areas that could be targeted to improve pain management in critical care., (© 2023 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

Transferring critically ill patients between intensive care units (ICU) is often required in the UK, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a paucity of data examining clinical outcomes following transfer of patients with COVID-19 and whether this strategy affects their acute physiology or outcome. We investigated all transfers of critically ill patients with COVID-19 between three different hospital ICUs, between March 2020 and March 2021. We focused on inter-hospital ICU transfers (those patients transferred between ICUs from different hospitals) and compared this cohort with intra-hospital ICU transfers (patients moved between different ICUs within the same hospital). A total of 507 transfers were assessed, of which 137 met the inclusion criteria. Forty-five patients underwent inter-hospital transfers compared with 92 intra-hospital transfers. There was no significant change in median compliance 6 h pre-transfer, immediately post-transfer and 24 h post-transfer in patients who underwent either intra-hospital or inter-hospital transfers. For inter-hospital transfers, there was an initial drop in median PaO 2 /F I O 2 ratio: from median (IQR [range]) 25.1 (17.8-33.7 [12.1-78.0]) kPa 6 h pre-transfer to 19.5 (14.6-28.9 [9.8-52.0]) kPa immediately post-transfer (p < 0.05). However, this had resolved at 24 h post-transfer: 25.4 (16.2-32.9 [9.4-51.9]) kPa. For intra-hospital transfers, there was no significant change in PaO 2 /F I O 2 ratio. We also found no meaningful difference in pH; PaCO 2 ; , base excess; bicarbonate; or norepinephrine requirements. Our data demonstrate that patients with COVID-19 undergoing mechanical ventilation of the lungs may have short-term physiological deterioration when transferred between nearby hospitals but this resolves within 24 h. This finding is relevant to the UK critical care strategy in the face of unprecedented demand during the COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2022 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.)

Pain is a common and distressing symptom experienced by intensive care patients. Assessing pain in this environment is challenging, and published guidelines have been inconsistently implemented. The Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT) study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of physician pain assessments with respect to published guidelines. This observational service evaluation considered all pain and analgesia-related entries in patients' records over a 24-h period, in 45 adult intensive care units (ICUs) in London and the South-East of England. Data were collected from 750 patients, reflecting the practice of 362 physicians. Nearly two-thirds of patients (n = 475, 64.5%, 95%CI 60.9-67.8%) received no physician-documented pain assessment during the 24-h study period. Just under one-third (n = 215, 28.6%, 95%CI 25.5-32.0%) received no nursing-documented pain assessment, and over one-fifth (n = 159, 21.2%, 95%CI 19.2-23.4)% received neither a doctor nor a nursing pain assessment. Two of the 45 ICUs used validated behavioural pain assessment tools. The likelihood of receiving a physician pain assessment was affected by the following factors: the number of nursing assessments performed; whether the patient was admitted as a surgical patient; the presence of tracheal tube or tracheostomy; and the length of stay in ICU. Physician-documented pain assessments in the majority of participating ICUs were infrequent and did not utilise recommended behavioural pain assessment tools. Further research to identify factors influencing physician pain assessment behaviour in ICU, such as human factors or cultural attitudes, is urgently needed., (© 2017 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.)

We assessed how often bedside stethoscopes in our intensive care unit were cleaned and whether they became colonised with potentially pathogenic bacteria. On two separate days the 12 nurses attending the bedspaces were questioned about frequency of stethoscope cleaning on the unit and the bedside stethoscopes were swabbed before and after cleaning to identify colonising organisms. Twenty-two health care providers entering the unit were asked the same questions and had their personal stethoscopes swabbed. All 32 non-medical staff cleaned their stethoscopes at least every day; however only three out of the 12 medical staff cleaned this often. Out of 24 intensive care unit bedside stethoscopes tested, two diaphragms and five earpieces were colonised with pathogenic bacteria. MRSA cultured from one earpiece persisted after cleaning. Three out of the 22 personal stethoscope diaphragms and five earpieces were colonised with pathogens. After cleaning, two diaphragms and two earpieces were still colonised, demonstrating the importance of regular cleaning.

Recovery from a critical illness can be delayed by persistent anxiety and depression. To identify such patients, a new self-report questionnaire (the Depression, Anxiety and Stress scale, DASS) was used alongside an established instrument (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, HADS) in those who had spent a minimum of 3 days (median 9 days) in a general intensive care unit. Fifty-one patients were studied 3 months later, and 45 survivors were reviewed at 9 months. High Cronbach alpha values (0.92-0.95) for each subscale of DASS confirmed its internal consistency, and likewise for HADS (0.82-0.86). HADS and DASS correlated strongly at each time point both for anxiety (r = 0.88) and depression (r = 0.93), with few discrepant values on a Bland and Altman plot. DASS performs as consistently as HADS in screening for anxiety and depression, and its psychometric properties support its use in an intensive care setting.

A prospective study using neuropsychological testing explored cognitive performance, and specifically executive function, in survivors of critical illness during the first year of recovery. Fifty-one patients who had survived 3 days or more in the intensive care unit were studied approximately 3 months after discharge; 45 of them were studied again 6 months later. General health was assessed using the Short-Form 36. Cognitive and executive functions were measured using Raven's Progressive Matrices, the Hayling Sentence completion test and the Six-Element Test. Three months after discharge from intensive care, all eight domains of Short-Form 36 were impaired among survivors; by 9 months, four of the eight domains showed significant improvement. At 3 months, 35% of patients scored at or below a level equivalent to the lowest performing 5% of a normal population (i.e. the fifth percentile) on two or more tests of cognitive function; by 9 months only 4% of patients were impaired to this extent. Although cognitive performance improved with time, it remained below normal.

This study aimed to examine the attitudes of intensivists and haematologists to the use of blood and blood products using a scenario-based postal questionnaire. One hundred and sixty-two intensivists and 77 haematologists responded to the survey. In four scenarios, the baseline haemoglobin thresholds for red cell transfusion ranged from 6 to 12 g.dl(-1). There was significant variation between scenarios (p <0.005). Increasing age, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Status II score, surgery, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock and lactic acidosis significantly (p <0.005) modified the transfusion threshold. There were greater variations in the baseline threshold for platelet transfusion. The majority of respondents (72.3%) selected a baseline haemoglobin threshold between 9 and 10 g.dl(-1). The thresholds for platelet transfusion were far less consistent.

This prospective observational study was conducted to assess the current transfusion practice in critically ill patients. One thousand two hundred and forty-seven consecutive critically ill patients admitted between February 1999 and October 1999 were included in the study. Overall 666 (53%) patients were administered red cells. Transfused patients had significantly higher intensive care unit mortality but also had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores and longer durations of stay. The average pretransfusion haemoglobin concentration was < 9 g.dl(-1) in 75% of transfusion episodes. The common indications for transfusion were low haemoglobin (72%) and haemorrhage (25%). Overall, 202 (16%) and 281 (22%) of the patients were transfused platelets and fresh frozen plasma, respectively. The indications for transfusion were haemorrhage, low platelet counts, prolonged prothrombin time or to provide cover for invasive interventions. Most platelet transfusions were given at values in the order of 50-100 x 10(9).l(-1). The pretransfusion platelet count varied according to the indications for transfusion. This study showed that transfusion practice is consistent and that in general there does not seem to be an excessive use of blood components in critically ill patients.