Search

Background Pain assessment in brain-injured patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging and existing scales may not be representative of behavioral reactions expressed by this specific group. This study aimed to validate the French-Canadian and English revised versions of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT-Neuro) for brain-injured ICU patients. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted in three Canadian and one American sites. Patients with a traumatic or a non-traumatic brain injury were assessed with the CPOT-Neuro by trained raters (i.e., research staff and ICU nurses) before, during, and after nociceptive procedures (i.e., turning and other) and non-nociceptive procedures (i.e., non-invasive blood pressure, soft touch). Patients who were conscious and delirium-free were asked to provide their self-report of pain intensity (0–10). A first data set was completed for all participants (n = 226), and a second data set (n = 87) was obtained when a change in the level of consciousness (LOC) was observed after study enrollment. Three LOC groups were included: (a) unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS 4–8); (b) altered LOC (GCS 9–12); and (c) conscious (GCS 13–15). Results Higher CPOT-Neuro scores were found during nociceptive procedures compared to rest and non-nociceptive procedures in both data sets (p 0.40 and > 0.60, respectively). CPOT-Neuro cut-off scores ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 were found to adequately classify mild to severe self-reported pain ≥ 1 and moderate to severe self-reported pain ≥ 5, respectively. Interrater reliability of raters’ CPOT-Neuro scores was supported with intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.69. Conclusions The CPOT-Neuro was found to be valid in this multi-site sample of brain-injured ICU patients at various LOC. Implementation studies are necessary to evaluate the tool’s performance in clinical practice.

Background Pain is a serious problem for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but we are lacking data on pain at the hospital ward after ICU discharge. Aims and objectives To describe pain intensity, -interference with function and -location in patients up to 1 year after ICU discharge. To identify demographic and clinical variables and their association with worst pain intensity and pain interference. Design A longitudinal descriptive secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial on nurse-led follow-up consultations on post-traumatic stress and sense of coherence after ICU discharge. Methods Pain intensity, -interference, and -location were measured using Brief Pain Inventory at the hospital ward and 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge. For associations, data were analysed using multivariate linear mixed models for repeated measures. Results Of 523 included patients, 68% reported worst pain intensity score above 0 (no pain) at the ward. Estimated means for worst pain intensity and -interference (from 0 to 10) after ICU discharge were 5.5 [CI 4.6-6.5] and 4.5 [CI 3.7-5.3], and decreased to 3.8 [CI 2.8-4.8] (P ≤ .001) and 2.9 [CI 2.1-3.7] after 12 months (P ≤ .001). Most common pain locations were abdomen (43%), lower lumbar back (28%), and shoulder/forearm (22%). At 12 months, post-traumatic stress (PTS) symptoms ≥25 (scale 10-70), female gender, shorter ICU stay, and more traumatic ICU memories were significantly associated with higher worst pain intensity. PTS symptoms ≥25, female gender, more traumatic ICU memories, younger age, and not having an internal medical diagnosis were significantly associated with higher pain interference. Conclusions Early after ICU discharge pain was present in 68% of patients. Thereafter, pain intensity and -interference declined, but pain intensity was still at a moderate level at 12 months. Health professionals should be aware of patients' pain and identify potentially vulnerable patients. Implication for practice Longitudinal assessment of factors associated with pain early after ICU discharge and the following year is a first step that could improve follow-up focus and contribute to reduced development of chronic pain.

Background Critical care consensus groups recommend providing bereavement support; however, little is known about what cardiac intensive care patients' families would find useful and beneficial in their grieving process. Aim and objectives To describe cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients' families' opinions on six common components of a bereavement programme. Design Qualitative, exploratory and descriptive. Methods Families were recruited from a cardiac ICU 13-15 months after their loved one's death. Families were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. The research team analysed interview transcripts to assess and categorize families' opinions on six bereavement components. Results Twelve family members were interviewed. Most were female (n = 8, 67%), spouses (n = 10, 83%) and white (n = 10, 83%), with a mean age (SD) of 58.4 years (16.7). Families' overall opinions of the bereavement brochure were positive, stating it was helpful in providing information about the grieving process. Families described the sympathy card as "meaningful" and "touching," although they rated it neutral in providing comfort. Most participants felt that a follow-up telephone call was unnecessary except to answer lingering questions they had. Many participants favoured the unit offering counselling services because they found therapy helpful in their grieving process. Participants had mixed feelings about a memory box; they believed it was an individual preference and should be handled in a sensitive manner. Most would not have attended a memorial service if offered because of traffic, distance, concerns about stressful feelings on returning to the hospital or because they already honoured their loved ones through a personalized memorial service. Conclusions Participants varied in their opinions about what bereavement services may be useful; however, this study provides insight about services that cardiac critical care units may consider when adding bereavement support. Relevance to clinical practice Family perspectives about bereavement needs can help structure services offered by critical care units.

Many brain-injured patients are unable to self-report their pain during their hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU), and existing behavioral pain scales may not be well suited.The objectives of this study were to describe and compare behaviors in brain-injured patients with different levels of consciousness during nociceptive and nonnociceptive care procedures in the ICU and to examine interrater agreement of individual behaviors as well as discriminative and criterion validation of putative pain behaviors.Brain-injured ICU patients were observed using a 40-item behavioral checklist before and during soft touch (i.e., nonnociceptive procedure), turning, and other care procedures (nociceptive) by pairs of trained raters. When possible, patients self-reported their pain on a 0-10 visual thermometer. Patients were classified into unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale, 3GCS≤8), altered consciousness (9≤GCS≤12), or conscious (13≤GCS≤15).A sample of 147 patients participated (65 conscious, 56 altered consciousness, and 26 unconscious). Active behaviors (e.g., face expressions and body movements) were more frequent in conscious patients. High-percentage interrater agreement (80%-98%) was obtained for most behaviors. The total number of active behaviors was significantly higher during turning and other nociceptive procedures compared with rest (Wilcoxon = 9.873, P 0.001) and soft touch (Wilcoxon = 9.486, P 0.001) regardless of levels of consciousness. The strongest predictors of pain intensity (n = 33) were grimace, mouth opening, orbit tightening, eye weeping, and eyes tightly closed; these behaviors were moderately correlated with self-reported pain intensity (Spearman rho = 0.47).These findings may guide the revision of existing pain scales to make their content more suited for this population.

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers.

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17–0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22–0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22–0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49–0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30–0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37–0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51–0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma and delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a “state-of-the-art” article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an “ABCDEF-R” bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.

Aim To assess occurrence of pain during the first 6 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and evaluate associations between occurrence of pain and selected patient‐related variables. Design A longitudinal study. Methods Adult ICU patients from three units were included. Patients' pain was assessed with valid pain assessment tools every 8 hr during their first 6 days in ICU. Possible associations between occurrence of pain and selected patient‐related variables were modelled using multiple logistic regression. Results When pain was assessed regularly with pain assessment tools, 10% of patients were in pain at rest and 27% were in pain during turning. The proportions of patients who were in pain were significantly higher for patients able to self‐report pain, compared with patients not able to self‐report (p

Background The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is recommended for evaluating pain behaviors in patients in the intensive care unit who are unable to report pain. The source of the only published Spanish version of the CPOT does not verify that it underwent a formal translation process. Objective To describe the translation into Spanish and cultural adaptation of the original French version of the CPOT. Methods Key persons in the translation process included one with a master’s degree in translation, a critical care physician, nurse faculty members with vast experience in intensive care units, and the instrument’s developer. This team followed the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures as a guide to translate and culturally adapt the CPOT. Results The first Spanish-language version was back translated to French and was also compared with the English version. Revisions necessitated a second version, which was submitted to experts in critical care. Their modifications required a third version, which was back translated to French and discussed with the CPOT developer, after which a fourth version was created. Finally, a linguistic expert proofread the tool, and the translation leaders incorporated the recommendations, thereby obtaining a final Spanish version. Conclusion The Spanish version is ready to undergo validation with patients in the intensive care unit, which is the next step toward its use in assessing pain behaviors among patients in intensive care units where Spanish is spoken.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Trauma ICU patients may require high and/or prolonged doses of opioids and/or benzodiazepines as part of their treatment. These medications may contribute to drug physical dependence, a response manifested by withdrawal syndrome. We aimed to identify risk factors, symptoms, and clinical variables associated with probable withdrawal syndrome. Design: Prospective exploratory observational study. Setting: Trauma ICU in large medical center in Puerto Rico. Participants: Fifty patients who received opioids and/or benzodiazepines for greater than or equal to 5 days. Measurements and Main Results: Using an opioid/benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome checklist developed from research in adult ICU patients, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5, and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, we evaluated patients at baseline and for 72 hours after drug weaning was initiated. Patients received opioid/benzodiazepine (88%), opioid (10%), or benzodiazepine (2%). Probable withdrawal syndrome occurred in 44%, questionable withdrawal syndrome in 20%, and no withdrawal syndrome in 18 (36%). Signs that were more frequent in the probable withdrawal syndrome group were agitation, diarrhea, fever, tachypnea, lacrimation, and hyperactive delirium. Patients who developed probable withdrawal syndrome spent almost double the amount of time receiving mechanical ventilation, and length of stay was higher in both ICU and hospital when compared with patients in the other two groups. Age, cumulative opioid dose amounts, and previous drug (opioid/benzodiazepine, cannabis, cocaine, or heroin) use were associated with odds of developing withdrawal syndrome. With the addition of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and delirium to the multilevel analysis, older age no longer had its protective effect, whereas increase in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores, delirium presence, and increased duration of mechanical ventilation were associated with higher odds of withdrawal syndrome. Conclusions: We identified probable withdrawal syndrome in a sample of trauma ICU patients through observation of several associated symptoms. Significant factors associated with withdrawal syndrome found in this study should be considered when caring for patients being weaned from opioids and/or benzodiazepines. Further validation of the opioid/benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome checklist is recommended.

Objectives: To determine the incidence of dexmedetomidine withdrawal in adult critically ill patients. Design: This was a prospective, observational study of patients from November 2017 to December 2018. Setting: Medical-surgical, cardiothoracic, and neurosurgical ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. Patients: Adult critically ill patients on dexmedetomidine infusions for at least 3 days. Interventions: Indicators of withdrawal were assessed at baseline and at least daily during the dexmedetomidine wean period. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Sedation was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 was performed and vital signs were recorded during each assessment. Patients were considered positive for dexmedetomidine withdrawal if they had two or more of the following symptoms: positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than +1, positive Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 assessment, tachycardia (heart rate > 90 beats/min), and hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure > 90). Measurements and Main Results: Forty-two patients were included in the study, with 64% of patients experiencing signs of dexmedetomidine withdrawal. The median time on dexmedetomidine for all patients was 9.6 days (5.8–12.7 d), and the median dose of dexmedetomidine received was 0.8 µg/kg/hr (0.5–1 µg/kg/hr). Of the patients who were positive for withdrawal, the most prevalent withdrawal symptoms observed included delirium, hypertension, and agitation (93%, 48%, and 33%, respectively). We found no correlation between chronic opioid tolerance and incidence of withdrawal symptoms. Peak dexmedetomidine doses greater than 0.8 µg/kg/hr and cumulative daily doses of dexmedetomidine greater than 12.9 µg/kg/d were associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal. Conclusions: The majority of patients in our study demonstrated signs that may be indicative of dexmedetomidine withdrawal. Peak and cumulative daily dexmedetomidine dose, rather than duration of therapy, may be associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal signs. Regular screening of patients on prolonged dexmedetomidine infusions is recommended to ensure safe and effective use in critically ill patients.

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.

BackgroundMethods and frequency of temperature monitoring in intensive care unit patients vary widely. The recently available SpotOn system uses zero-heat-flux technology and offers a noninvasive method for continuous monitoring of core temperature of critical care patients at risk for alterations in body temperature.ObjectiveTo evaluate agreement between and precision of a zero-heat-flux thermometry system (SpotOn) and continuous rectal and urinary bladder thermometry during fever and defervescence in adult patients in intensive care units.MethodsProspective comparison of SpotOn vs rectal and urinary bladder thermometry in eligible patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on the effect of acetaminophen on core body temperature and hemodynamic status.ResultsA total of 748 paired temperature measurements from 38 patients who had both SpotOn monitoring and either continuous rectal or continuous bladder thermometry were analyzed. Temperatures during the study were from 36.6°C to 39.9°C. The mean difference for SpotOn compared with bladder thermometry was −0.07°C (SD, 0.24°C; 95% limits of agreement, ± 0.47°C [−0.54°C, 0.40°C]). The mean difference for SpotOn compared with rectal thermometry was −0.24°C (SD, 0.29°C; 95% limits of agreement, ± 0.57°C [−0.81°C, 0.33°C]). Most differences in temperature between methods were within ± 0.5°C in both groups (96% bladder and 85% rectal).ConclusionsThe SpotOn thermometry system has excellent agreement and good precision and is a potential alternative for noninvasive continuous monitoring of core temperature in critical care patients, especially when alternative methods are contraindicated or not available.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVE To determine the effects of IV acetaminophen on core body temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate in febrile critically ill patients. DESIGN Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING Three adult ICUs at a large, urban, academic medical center. PATIENTS Forty critically ill adults with fever (core temperature, ≥ 38.3°C). INTERVENTION An infusion of acetaminophen 1 g or saline placebo over 15 minutes. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS Core temperature and vital signs were measured at baseline and at 5-15-minute intervals for 4 hours after infusion of study drug. The primary outcome was time-weighted average core temperature adjusted for baseline temperature. Secondary outcomes included adjusted time-weighted average heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate, along with changes-over-time for each. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in those given acetaminophen and placebo. Patients given acetaminophen had an adjusted time-weighted average temperature that was 0.47°C less than those given placebo (95% CI, -0.76 to -0.18; p = 0.002). The acetaminophen group had significantly lower adjusted time-weighted average systolic blood pressure (-17 mm Hg; 95% CI, -25 to -8; p < 0.001), mean arterial pressure (-7 mm Hg; 95% CI, -12 to -1; p = 0.02), and heart rate (-6 beats/min; 95% CI, -10 to -1; p = 0.03). Changes-over-time temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate outcomes were also significantly lower at 2 hours, but not at 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS Among febrile critically ill adults, treatment with acetaminophen decreased temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate. IV acetaminophen thus produces modest fever reduction in critical care patients, along with clinically important reductions in blood pressure.

Many critically ill adults are unable to communicate their pain through self-report. The study purpose was to validate the use of the 8-item Behavior Pain Assessment Tool (BPAT) in patients hospitalized in 192 intensive care units from 28 countries. A total of 4812 procedures in 3851 patients were included in data analysis. Patients were assessed with the BPAT before and during procedures by 2 different raters (mostly nurses and physicians). Those who were able to self-report were asked to rate their pain intensity and pain distress on 0 to 10 numeric rating scales. Interrater reliability of behavioral observations was supported by moderate (0.43-0.60) to excellent (0.60) kappa coefficients. Mixed effects multilevel logistic regression models showed that most behaviors were more likely to be present during the procedure than before and in less sedated patients, demonstrating discriminant validation of the tool use. Regarding criterion validation, moderate positive correlations were found during procedures between the mean BPAT scores and the mean pain intensity (r = 0.54) and pain distress (r = 0.49) scores (P0.001). Regression models showed that all behaviors were significant predictors of pain intensity and pain distress, accounting for 35% and 29% of their total variance, respectively. A BPAT cut-point score3.5 could classify patients with or without severe levels (≥8) of pain intensity and distress with sensitivity and specificity findings ranging from 61.8% to 75.1%. The BPAT was found to be reliable and valid. Its feasibility for use in practice and the effect of its clinical implementation on patient pain and intensive care unit outcomes need further research.

We present areas of uncertainty concerning intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and identify areas for future research. Age, pre-ICU functional and cognitive state, concurrent illness, frailty, and health trajectories impact outcomes and should be assessed to stratify patients. In the ICU, early assessment of limb and diaphragm muscle strength and function using nonvolitional tests may be useful, but comparison with established methods of global and specific muscle strength and physical function and determination of their reliability and normal values would be important to advance these techniques. Serial measurements of limb and respiratory muscle strength, and systematic screening for dysphagia, would be helpful to clarify if and how weakness of these muscle groups is independently associated with outcome. ICUAW, delirium, and sedatives and analgesics may interact with each other, amplifying the effects of each individual factor. Reduced mobility in patients with hypoactive delirium needs investigations into dysfunction of central and peripheral nervous system motor pathways. Interventional nutritional studies should include muscle mass, strength, and physical function as outcomes, and prioritize elucidation of mechanisms. At follow-up, ICU survivors may suffer from prolonged muscle weakness and wasting and other physical impairments, as well as fatigue without demonstrable weakness on examination. Further studies should evaluate the prevalence and severity of fatigue in ICU survivors and define its association with psychiatric disorders, pain, cognitive impairment, and axonal loss. Finally, methodological issues, including accounting for baseline status, handling of missing data, and inclusion of patient-centered outcome measures should be addressed in future studies.

Objective:To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU.Methods:We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We a

Background Thirst is prevalent among patients in intensive care units. A research-based “thirst bundle” was shown to significantly decrease thirst in these patients. Objective To implement a research-based thirst intervention performed by intensive care unit nurses and patients’ family members. Methods Nurses and family members were taught the thirst intervention through video training and project team reinforcement. The intervention was performed by nurses for 123 patients and by family members for 13 patients. Thirst was measured with a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10, a word scale of 0 to 3, or “yes/no” answers, whichever was easiest for the patient. Inferential statistics were used to assess changes in thirst scores over time. Also assessed were nurse and family member burden levels, family level of satisfaction, and patient enjoyment. Results Thirst scores on the numeric rating scale decreased significantly: from a mean (SD) of 7.9 (2.0) before to 3.9 (2.7) after the intervention for nurses (P < .001); and from 9.2 (1.5) to 5.3 (2.6) for family members (n = 13; P = .002). Word scale scores also decreased significantly, from a median (interquartile range) of 3 (3-3) before to 2 (1-2) after the intervention for nurses (P < .001). Most patients (96%) reported enjoying the procedure. Median burden levels were less than 2 on a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10. Conclusions The palliative “thirst bundle” significantly alleviated patients’ thirst and resulted in little caregiver burden. Further efforts are warranted to incorporate this intervention into intensive care unit practice.

International audience; This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Emergency department (ED) pain assessment documentation in trauma patients is critical to ED pain care. This retrospective, cross-sectional study used trauma registry data to evaluate U.S. military combat zone trauma patients injured between 2010 and 2013 requiring ≥ 24-hr inpatient care. Study aims were to identify the frequency of combat zone ED pain assessment documentation and describe pain severity. Secondary aims were to construct statistical models to explain variation in pain assessment documentation and pain severity.Pain scores were documented in 60.5% (n = 3,339) of the 5,518 records evaluated. The proportion of records with ED pain scores increased yearly. Pain assessment documentation was associated with documentation of ED vital signs, comprehensive facility, more recent year, prehospital (PH) heart rate of 60-100 beats/min, ED Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 vs. 14, blunt trauma, and lower injury severity score (ISS).Pain severity scores ranged from 0 to 10; mean = 5.5 (SD = 3.1); median = 6. Higher ED pain scores were associated with Army service compared with Marine Corps, no documented PH vital signs, higher PH pain score, ED respiratory rate12 or16, moderate or severe ISS compared with minor ISS, treatment in a less-equipped facility, and injury in 2011 or 2012 vs. 2010. The pain severity model explained 20.4% of variance in pain severity.Overall, frequency of pain assessment documentation in combat-zone EDs improved yearly, but remained suboptimal. Pain severity was poorly predicted by demographic, clinical, and health system variables available from the trauma registry, emphasizing the importance of individual assessment.

Objectives Prolonged use of dexmedetomidine has become increasingly common due to its favorable sedative and anxiolytic properties. Hypersympathetic withdrawal symptoms have been reported with abrupt discontinuation of prolonged dexmedetomidine infusions. Clonidine has been used to transition patients off dexmedetomidine infusions for ICU sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the occurrence of dexmedetomidine withdrawal symptoms in ICU patients transitioning to a clonidine taper versus those weaned off dexmedetomidine alone after prolonged dexmedetomidine infusion. Design This was a single-center, prospective, double cohort observational study conducted from November 2017 to December 2018. Setting Medical-surgical, cardiothoracic, and neurosurgical ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. Patients We included adult ICU patients being weaned off dexmedetomidine after receiving continuous infusions for at least 3 days. Interventions Patients were either weaned off dexmedetomidine alone or with a clonidine taper at the discretion of the providers. Measurements and main results The primary outcome was the incidence of at least two dexmedetomidine withdrawal symptoms during a single assessment within 24 hours of dexmedetomidine discontinuation. Time on dexmedetomidine after wean initiation and difference in medication cost were also evaluated. Forty-two patients were included in this study: 15 received clonidine (Group C) and 27 weaned off dexmedetomidine alone (Group D). There was no significant difference in the incidence of two or more withdrawal symptoms between groups (73% in Group C vs 59% in Group D; p = 0.51). Patients in Group C spent less time on dexmedetomidine after wean initiation compared with patients in Group D (19 vs 42 hr; p = 0.02). An average cost savings of $1,553.47 per patient who received clonidine was observed. No adverse effects were noted. Conclusions Our study demonstrated that patients receiving clonidine were able to wean off dexmedetomidine more rapidly, with a considerable cost savings and no difference in dexmedetomidine withdrawal symptoms, compared with patients weaned off dexmedetomidine alone. Clonidine may be a safe, effective, and practical option to transition patients off prolonged dexmedetomidine infusions.

Background Family members of patients who die in an intensive care unit (ICU) may experience negative outcomes. However, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of bereavement care for families. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of bereavement follow-up on family members’ anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, prolonged grief, and satisfaction with care. Methods A cross-sectional, prospective pilot study of 40 family members of patients who died in 2 tertiary care ICUs. Those in the medical-surgical ICU received bereavement follow-up (bereavement group); those in the cardiac ICU received standard care (nonbereavement group). Both groups completed surveys 13 months after the death. Surveys included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Family Satisfaction With Care in the Intensive Care Unit, Prolonged Grief Disorder, and a bereavement survey. Results Of 30 family members in the bereavement group and 10 in the nonbereavement group, most were female and spouses, with a mean (SD) age of 60.1 (13.3) years. Significantly more participants in the nonbereavement group than in the bereavement group had prolonged grief. Posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and satisfaction with care were not significantly different in the 2 groups. However, overall posttraumatic stress scores were higher in the nonbereavement group than the bereavement group, indicating a higher risk of posttraumatic stress disorder. Conclusions Bereavement follow-up after an ICU death reduced family members’ prolonged grief and may also reduce their risk of posttraumatic stress disorder. This type of support did not have a measurable effect on depression or satisfaction with ICU care.

Background Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. Objectives To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. Methods Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. Results Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. Linking evidence to action Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Author(s): Devlin, John W; Skrobik, Yoanna; Gelinas, Celine; Needham, Dale M; Slooter, Arjen JC; Pandharipande, Pratik P; Watson, Paula L; Weinhouse, Gerald L; Nunnally, Mark E; Rochwerg, Bram; Balas, Michele C; van den Boogaard, Mark; Bosma, Karen J; Brummel, Nathaniel E; Chanques, Gerald; Denehy, Linda; Drouot, Xavier; Fraser, Gilles L; Harris, Jocelyn E; Joffe, Aaron M; Kho, Michelle E; Kress, John P; Lanphere, Julie A; McKinley, Sharon; Neufeld, Karin J; Pisani, Margaret A; Payen, Jean-Francois; Pun, Brenda T; Puntillo, Kathleen A; Riker, Richard R; Robinson, Bryce RH; Shehabi, Yahya; Szumita, Paul M; Winkelman, Chris; Centofanti, John E; Price, Carrie; Nikayin, Sina; Misak, Cheryl J; Flood, Pamela D; Kiedrowski, Ken; Alhazzani, Waleed

In this review, we seek to highlight how critical illness and critical care affect longer-term outcomes, to underline the contribution of ICU delirium to cognitive dysfunction several months after ICU discharge, to give new insights into ICU acquired weakness, to emphasize the importance of value-based healthcare, and to delineate the elements of family-centered care. This consensus of 29 also provides a perspective and a research agenda about post-ICU recovery., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND Integrating palliative care into intensive care requires active involvement of bedside nurses in discussions of patients' prognosis and goals of care. OBJECTIVE To improve critical care nurses' skills and confidence to engage in discussions with patients' families and physicians about prognosis and goals of care by using a focused educational intervention. METHODS An 8-hour-long workshop was developed for critical care nurses. Key roles and skills of nurses in communication about prognosis and goals of care were defined. Participants practiced skills during facilitated role-plays. A reflection session addressed burnout, distress, and self-care. Participants completed surveys before, immediately after, and 3 months after their workshop, rating their confidence and skill in performing key tasks. Use of a participant focus group and open-response items in the surveys further elucidated the impact of the workshop. RESULTS Between March 2011 and April 2013, a total of 82 critical care nurses completed a workshop. Compared with before the workshop, after the workshop, nurses reported greater skill and confidence for 14 survey items (P < .001), including assessing families' understanding of prognosis and goals of care, addressing families' emotional needs, and contributing to family meetings. Increases were sustained 3 months after the workshop. CONCLUSION Defining roles and providing opportunities for skills practice and reflection can enhance nurses' confidence to engage in discussions about prognosis and goals of care.

Rapid response teams (RRTs) can effectively foster discussions about appropriate goals of care and address other emergent palliative care needs of patients and families facing life-threatening illness on hospital wards. In this article, The Improving Palliative Care in the ICU (IPAL-ICU) Project brings together interdisciplinary expertise and existing data to address the following: special challenges for providing palliative care in the rapid response setting, knowledge and skills needed by RRTs for delivery of high-quality palliative care, and strategies for improving the integration of palliative care with rapid response critical care. We discuss key components of communication with patients, families, and primary clinicians to develop a goal-directed treatment approach during a rapid response event. We also highlight the need for RRT expertise to initiate symptom relief. Strategies including specific clinician training and system initiatives are then recommended for RRT care improvement. We conclude by suggesting that as evaluation of their impact on other outcomes continues, performance by RRTs in meeting palliative care needs of patients and families should also be measured and improved.

Chronic pain associated with serious illnesses is having a major impact on population health in the United States. Accountability for high quality care for community-dwelling patients with serious illnesses requires selection of metrics that capture the burden of chronic pain whose treatment may be enhanced or complicated by opioid use.Our aim was to evaluate options for assessing pain in seriously ill community dwelling adults, to discuss the use/abuse of opioids in individuals with chronic pain, and to suggest pain and opioid use metrics that can be considered for screening and evaluation of patient responses and quality care.Structured literature review.Evaluation of pain and opioid use assessment metrics and measures for their potential usefulness in the community.Several pain and opioid assessment instruments are available for consideration. Yet, no one pain instrument has been identified as "the best" to assess pain in seriously ill community-dwelling patients. Screening tools exist that are specific to the assessment of risk in opioid management. Opioid screening can assess risk based on substance use history, general risk taking, and reward-seeking behavior.Accountability for high quality care for community-dwelling patients requires selection of metrics that will capture the burden of chronic pain and beneficial use or misuse of opioids. Future research is warranted to identify, modify, or develop instruments that contain important metrics, demonstrate a balance between sensitivity and specificity, and address patient preferences and quality outcomes.

BACKGROUND Integrating palliative care into intensive care units (ICUs) requires involvement of bedside nurses, who report inadequate education in palliative care. OBJECTIVE To implement and evaluate a palliative care professional development program for ICU bedside nurses. METHODS From May 2013 to January 2015, palliative care advanced practice nurses and nurse educators in 5 academic medical centers completed a 3-day train-the-trainer program followed by 2 years of mentoring to implement the initiative. The program consisted of 8-hour communication workshops for bedside nurses and structured rounds in ICUs, where nurse leaders coached bedside nurses in identifying and addressing palliative care needs. Primary outcomes were nurses' ratings of their palliative care communication skills in surveys, and nurses' identification of palliative care needs during coaching rounds. RESULTS Each center held at least 6 workshops, training 428 bedside nurses. Nurses rated their skill level higher after the workshop for 15 tasks (eg, responding to family distress, ensuring families understand information in family meetings, all P < .01 vs preworkshop). Coaching rounds in each ICU took a mean of 3 hours per month. For 82% of 1110 patients discussed in rounds, bedside nurses identified palliative care needs and created plans to address them. CONCLUSIONS Communication skills training workshops increased nurses' ratings of their palliative care communication skills. Coaching rounds supported nurses in identifying and addressing palliative care needs.

International audience

Background The evidence shows that brain-injured patients express behaviours that are related to their level of consciousness (LOC), and different from other patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, existing behavioural scales should be revised to enhance their content and validity for use in these patients. Objectives The aim was to evaluate the content relevance of behaviours and autonomic responses for pain assessment of brain-injured ICU patients from the perspective of critical care clinicians. Methods A total of 77 clinicians from four adult neuroscience ICUs (three from Canada and one from the United States) participated in this descriptive study. A physician/nurse ratio of 21% (13/61) was reached in this quota sample, and three physiotherapists also participated. They completed a content validation questionnaire of 19 items rated on clarity and relevance based on the patient’s LOC. Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), and modified kappa (κ*) were calculated. Values higher than 0.78 and 0.75 respectively were considered excellent. Results Regardless of the patient’s LOC, brow lowering, grimacing, and trying to reach the pain site were rated as the most relevant behaviours by clinicians, with excellent values of I-CVI > 0.78 and κ* > 0.75. Eyes tightly closed, moaning and verbal complaints of pain also obtained excellent values in altered LOC and conscious patients. Eye weeping obtained excellent values only in conscious patients. Other items showed fair (0.40–0.59) to good (0.60–0.74) values, while blinking and coughing showed poor values ( Conclusions Facial expressions, movements towards the pain site, and vocalisation of pain were the most relevant pain-related behaviours rated by critical care clinicians. The relevance of some behaviours (e.g., moaning and verbal complaints of pain) varied across LOCs, thereby calling forth adaptations of behavioural pain scales to allow for interpretation in the context of a patient’s LOC and ability to express specific behaviours.

Family-centered care is an important component of holistic nursing practice, particularly in critical care, where the impact on families of admitted patients can be physiologically and psychologically burdensome. Family-centered care guidelines, developed by an international group of nursing, medical, and academic experts for the American College of Critical Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine, explore the evidence base in 5 key areas of family-centered care. Evidence in each of the guideline areas is outlined and recommendations are made about how critical care nurses can use this information in family-centered care practice.

Background The diagnosis of breast cancer, in combination with the anticipation of surgery, evokes fear, uncertainty, and anxiety in most women. Objective Study purposes were to examine in patients who underwent breast cancer surgery how ratings of state anxiety changed from the time of the preoperative assessment to 6 months after surgery and to investigate whether specific demographic, clinical, symptom, and psychosocial adjustment characteristics predicted the preoperative levels of state anxiety and/or characteristics of the trajectories of state anxiety. Interventions/methods Patients (n = 396) were enrolled preoperatively and completed the Spielberger State Anxiety inventory monthly for 6 months. Using hierarchical linear modeling, demographic, clinical, symptom, and psychosocial adjustment characteristics were evaluated as predictors of initial levels and trajectories of state anxiety. Results Patients experienced moderate levels of anxiety before surgery. Higher levels of depressive symptoms and uncertainty about the future, as well as lower levels of life satisfaction, less sense of control, and greater difficulty coping, predicted higher preoperative levels of state anxiety. Higher preoperative state anxiety, poorer physical health, decreased sense of control, and more feelings of isolation predicted higher state anxiety scores over time. Conclusions Moderate levels of anxiety persist in women for 6 months after breast cancer surgery. Implications for practice Clinicians need to implement systematic assessments of anxiety to identify high-risk women who warrant more targeted interventions. In addition, ongoing follow-up is needed to prevent adverse postoperative outcomes and to support women to return to their preoperative levels of function.

Depressive symptoms are common in women with breast cancer. This study evaluated how ratings of depressive symptoms changed from the time of the preoperative assessment to 6 months after surgery and investigated whether specific demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics predicted preoperative levels of and/or characteristics of the trajectories of depressive symptoms. Characteristics that predicted higher preoperative levels of depressive symptoms included being married/partnered; receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy; more fear of metastasis; higher levels of trait anxiety, state anxiety, sleep disturbance, problems with changes in appetite; more hours per day in pain; and lower levels of attentional function. Future studies need to evaluate associations between anxiety, fears of recurrence, and uncertainty, as well as personality characteristics and depressive symptoms.

Rationale:Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures every day. The prevalence, intensity, and risk factors of pain related to these procedures are not well known. Objectives: To assess self-reported procedural pain intensity versus baseline pain, examine pain intensity differences across procedures, and identify risk factors for procedural pain intensity. Methods: Prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational study of pain intensity associated with 12 procedures. Data were obtained from 3,851 patients who underwent 4,812 procedures in 192 ICUs in 28 countries. Measurements andMain Results: Painintensity on a 0–10 numeric rating scale increased significantly from baseline pain during all procedures (P , 0.001). Chest tube removal, wound drain removal, and arterial line insertion were the three most painful procedures, with median pain scores of 5 (3–7), 4.5 (2–7), and 4 (2–6), respectively. By multivariate analysis, risk factors independently associated with greater procedural pain intensity were the specific procedure; opioid administration specifically for the procedure; preprocedural pain intensity; preprocedural pain distress; intensity of the worst pain on the same day, before the procedure; and procedure not performed by a nurse. A significant ICU effect was observed, with no visible effect of country because of its absorption by the ICU effect. Some of the risk factors became nonsignificant when each procedure was examined separately. Conclusions: Knowledge of risk factors for greater procedural pain intensity identified in this study may help clinicians select interventions that are needed to minimize procedural pain. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01070082).

Background Despite international bodies calling for increased patient and family involvement, these concepts remain poorly defined within literature on critical and intensive care settings. Objective This scoping review investigates the extent and range of literature on patient and family involvement in critical and intensive care settings. Methodological and empirical gaps are identified, and a future agenda for research into optimizing patient and family involvement is outlined. Methods Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts and PsycINFO were conducted. English-language articles published between 2003 and 2014 were retrieved. Articles were included if the studies were undertaken in an intensive care or critical care setting, addressed the topic of patient and family involvement, included a sample of adult critical care patients, their families and/or critical care providers. Two reviewers extracted and charted data and analysed findings using qualitative content analysis. Findings A total of 892 articles were screened, 124 were eligible for analysis, including 61 quantitative, 61 qualitative and 2 mixed-methods studies. There was a significant gap in research on patient involvement in the intensive care unit. The analysis identified five different components of family and patient involvement: (i) presence, (ii) having needs met/being supported, (iii) communication, (iv) decision making and (v) contributing to care. Conclusion Three research gaps were identified that require addressing: (i) the scope, extent and nature of patient involvement in intensive care settings; (ii) the broader socio-cultural processes that shape patient and family involvement; and (iii) the bidirectional implications between patient/family involvement and interprofessional teamwork.

Pain, dyspnea, and thirst are three of the most prevalent, intense, and distressing symptoms of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In this report, the interdisciplinary Advisory Board of the Improving Palliative Care in the ICU (IPAL-ICU) Project brings together expertise in both critical care and palliative care along with current information to address challenges in assessment and management. We conducted a comprehensive review of literature focusing on intensive care and palliative care research related to palliation of pain, dyspnea, and thirst. Evidence-based methods to assess pain are the enlarged 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for ICU patients able to self-report and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool or Behavior Pain Scale for patients who cannot report symptoms verbally or non-verbally. The Respiratory Distress Observation Scale is the only known behavioral scale for assessment of dyspnea, and thirst is evaluated by patient self-report using an 0–10 NRS. Opioids remain the mainstay for pain management, and all available intravenous opioids, when titrated to similar pain intensity end points, are equally effective. Dyspnea is treated (with or without invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation) by optimizing the underlying etiological condition, patient positioning and, sometimes, supplemental oxygen. Several oral interventions are recommended to alleviate thirst. Systematized improvement efforts addressing symptom management and assessment can be implemented in ICUs. Relief of symptom distress is a key component of critical care for all ICU patients, regardless of condition or prognosis. Evidence-based approaches for assessment and treatment together with well-designed work systems can help ensure comfort and related favorable outcomes for the critically ill.

Thirst, as a symptom, has long been considered the most prevalent clinical complaint patients voice in healthcare settings. Yet, rarely have researchers examined thirst by its correlation with physiologic factors. This review was undertaken to examine the relationships between thirst ratings and factors mediating its primary physiologic correlates: plasma osmolality (pOsm) and arginine vasopressin peptide (AVP). A literature search was undertaken to identify clinical studies in human subjects that investigated the relationship of thirst to specific physiologic thirst-related correlates and associated thirst mediators. Thirst was induced in 17 selected clinical studies by hyperosmolar infusion, through water deprivation or exercise weight-loss regimens. Positive linear relationships between the subjects' thirst ratings and rising serum pOsm levels confirmed the presence of intact osmotic thirst drives. However, there were significant variations in normal compensatory rises in AVP levels that followed the rises in plasma osmolality after the subjects were exposed to cold, physical pre-conditioning and water immersion tests. Notably, older adults in the studies reported diminished thirst ratings. Weak correlations suggest that angiotensin II may play only a minor role in thirst mediation. Atrial natriuretic hormone's inhibitory effect on thirst was inconsistent. Findings indicated that older adults are at higher risk for profound dehydration due to sensory deficits along with failure to correct volume losses. The thirst trials results support the close correlation between serum pOsm values and patients' thirst ratings, with the exception of the older adult.

Many hospitalized adults cannot reposition themselves in their beds. Therefore, they are regularly turned by their nurses, primarily to prevent pressure ulcer formation. Earlier research indicates that turning is painful and that patients are rarely premedicated with analgesics. Nonpharmacologic interventions may be used to help with this painful procedure. However, no published research was found on the use of nonpharmacologic interventions for turning of hospitalized patients. The objectives of this study were: 1) to describe patient pain characteristics during turning and their association with patient demographic and clinical characteristics; 2) to determine the frequency of use of various nonpharmacologic interventions for hospitalized adult patients undergoing the painful procedure of turning; and 3) to identify factors that predict the use of specific nonpharmacologic interventions for pain associated with turning. Hospitalized adult patients who experienced turning, the nurses caring for them, and others who were present at the time of turning were asked if they used various nonpharmacologic interventions to manage pain during the turning. Out of 1,395 patients, 92.5% received at least one nonpharmacologic intervention. Most frequently used were calming voice (65.7%), information (60.6%), and deep breathing (37.9%). Critical-care patients were more likely to receive a calming voice (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, p < .01), receive information (OR 1.62, p < .001), and use deep breathing (OR= 1.36, p < .05) than those who were not critical-care patients. Those reporting higher pain were consistently more likely to receive each of the three interventions (OR 1.01, p < .05 for all 3). In conclusion, nonpharmacologic interventions are used frequently during a turning procedure. The specific interventions used most often are ones that can be initiated spontaneously. Our data suggest that patients, nurses, and family members respond to patients' turning-related pain by using nonpharmacologic interventions.

Pain is experienced by the overwhelming majority of patients during their intensive care unit stay, but it remains an underappreciated problem. To effectively treat pain, it must be detected and quantified using a validated assessment tool. It is acknowledged that optimal pain relief may be difficult to achieve given the complex interplay of coexisting medical conditions and the environment in which care is provided. Nonetheless, by following structured approaches to pain, resource consumption may be reduced, and even improved survival may be realized. This review covers practices and techniques specific to addressing and treating pain in the adult intensive care environment. Traditional pharmacological approaches including opiate and nonopiate medications are reviewed, as are regional anesthetic techniques and nonpharmacological approaches used for controlling pain.