Article

Patients' recollections of stressful experiences while receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit.

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Critical Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 6.15). 04/2002; 30(4):746-52. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200204000-00004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe stressful experiences of adult patients who received mechanical ventilation for > or =48 hrs in an intensive care unit.
Prospective cohort study.
Four intensive care units within an East Coast tertiary-care university medical center.
Patients were 150 adult intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation for > or =48 hrs.
None.
As part of a study of the long-term outcomes of adult patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation, we used a 32-item questionnaire to collect data on patients' stressful experiences, both psychological (e.g., fearfulness, anxiety) and physical (e.g., pain, difficulty breathing), associated with the mechanical ventilation endotracheal tube and with being in an intensive care unit. Of 554 patients who met study criteria and survived prolonged mechanical ventilation, 150 consented and were oriented to person, place, and situation. Two thirds of these patients remembered the endotracheal tube and/or being in an intensive care unit. The median numbers of endotracheal tube and intensive care unit experiences remembered were 3 (of 7) and 9 (of 22), respectively. If a patient remembered an experience in the questionnaire, it was likely to be moderately to extremely bothersome. Some of the items that many patients found to be moderately to extremely bothersome were pain, fear, anxiety, lack of sleep, feeling tense, inability to speak/communicate, lack of control, nightmares, and loneliness. Stressful experiences associated with the endotracheal tube were strongly associated with subjects' experiencing spells of terror, feeling nervous when left alone, and poor sleeping patterns.
Subjects were more likely to remember experiences that were moderately to extremely bothersome. This might be because the more bothersome experiences were easier to recall or because most of these experiences are common and significant stressors to many of these patients. In either case, these data indicate that these patients are subject to numerous stressful experiences, which many find quite bothersome. This suggests the potential for improved symptom management, which could contribute to a less stressful intensive care unit stay and improved patient outcomes.

Full-text

Available from: Lakshmipathi Chelluri, Feb 17, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
137 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients can be complicated by multiple factors. Decisions to administer opioids, sedatives, and antipsychotic medications are frequently driven by a desire to facilitate patients’ comfort and their tolerance of invasive procedures or other interventions within the ICU. Despite accumulating evidence supporting new strategies to optimize pain, sedation, and delirium practices in the ICU, many critical care practitioners continue to embrace false perceptions regarding appropriate management in these critically ill patients. This article explores these perceptions in more detail and offers new evidence-based strategies to help critical care practitioners better manage sedation and delirium, particularly in ICU patients.
    Critical Care Medicine 09/2013; 41(9):S46-S56. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a168f5 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: In 2013, the American College of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. The guidelines included an ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle designed to facilitate implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Design: Review article. Setting: Multispecialty critical care units. Patients: Adult ICU patients. Interventions: This article describes: 1) the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle in more detail, linking pain, sedation/agitation, and delirium management in an integrated and interdisciplinary fashion; 2) pain, agitation, and delirium implementation strategies; and 3) the potential synergistic benefits of linking pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies to other evidence-based ICU practices, including spontaneous breathing trials, ICU early mobility programs, and ICU sleep hygiene programs, in order to improve ICU patient outcomes and to reduce costs of care. Results: Linking the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies with spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, and early mobility and sleep hygiene programs is associated with significant improvements in ICU patient outcomes and reductions in their costs of care. Conclusions: The 2013 ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines provide critical care providers with an evidence-based, integrated, and interdisciplinary approach to managing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium. The ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle provides a framework for facilitating implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Widespread implementation of the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle is likely to result in large-scale improvements in ICU patient outcomes and significant reductions in costs.
    Critical Care Medicine 01/2013; 41:S99-S115. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a16ff0 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This pilot study was designed to identify which contextual factors facilitate/hinder the implementation of the awakening, breathing, coordination, delirium, and early mobility (ABCDE) bundle for guidance in future studies. Design: The sources of data for this study included document review, planned site visits (including interviews and observations), a brief online contextual factors survey, and self-reported process and outcome data. Patients: All patients in the four participating SF Bay Area ICUs were eligible to be included in this pilot study. Setting: This study took place in the four San Francisco Bay Area ICUs participating in the ICU Clinical Impact Interest Group, funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation from January 2012 through June 2013. Interventions: This was a pilot evaluation study to identify factors that facilitated/hindered the implementation of the ABCDE bundle, interventions designed to decrease the prevalence of ICU-acquired delirium and muscle weakness. The ABCDE bundle consists of spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, coordination of awakening and breathing trials, choice of sedation, delirium screening and treatment, and early progressive mobility. Measurements: Process data related to bundle element compliance were collected at baseline and monthly during the intervention period. Outcome data (average ICU length of stay and average days on mechanical ventilation) were collected at baseline and quarterly during the intervention period. Hospital-specific results of the online contextual factors survey and information gathered through interviews and observations during site visits also contributed to the analysis. Main Results: Factors related to structural characteristics of the ICU, an organizational-wide patient safety culture, an ICU culture of quality improvement, implementation planning, training/support, and prompts/documentation are believed to have facilitated the rate and success of ABCDE bundle implementation. Excessive turnover (both in project and ICU leadership), staff morale issues, lack of respect among disciplines, knowledge deficits, and excessive use of registry staff are believed to have hindered implementation. Conclusions: Successful implementation of the elements of the ABCDE bundle can result in significant improvements in ICU patient care. The results of this study highlight specific structural and cultural elements of ICUs and hospitals that can positively and negatively influence the implementation of complex care bundles like the ABCDE bundle. Further research is needed to assess the influence of these contextual factors across a broader variety of ICUs and hospitals.
    Critical Care Medicine 09/2013; 41(9):S128-S135. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a2c2b1 · 6.15 Impact Factor