Article

Predictors for daily interruption of sedation therapy by nurses: a prospective, multicenter study.

Department of Pharmacy, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
Journal of critical care (Impact Factor: 2.19). 05/2010; 25(4):660.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.03.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to identify the nurse and patient-related factors predicting daily interruption of sedation (DIS) performance by nurses in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Nurses, caring for a mechanically ventilated patient receiving 24 hours or more of a continuously infused sedative, were interviewed at the bedside to determine their willingness to perform DIS on this patient and to determine the influence of 20 nurse- and 47 patient-related factors on DIS completion.
The 57 (44%) of 130 of nurses willing to perform DIS had performed DIS at least once in the past (P < .0001) and were not targeting deep sedation (ie, Sedation Agitation Scale [SAS] ≤ 2 [P = .03]). The DIS performance was less likely with use of higher-dose continuous midazolam (P = .006), a fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio(2)) greater than 50% (P = .03), or positive end-expiratory pressure greater than 5 mm Hg (P = .006) and in patients either deeply sedated (SAS ≤ 2) (P = .05) or agitated (SAS ≥ 5) in the past 24 hours (P = .003). Prior DIS experience (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P = .004), hours of sedation-related continuing education (OR, 1.13; P = .02), and a target of deep sedation (OR, 0.49; P = .02) were independent nurse-related factors for DIS performance. Nurse's willingness to conduct DIS ranged from 45% to 80% based on the interaction between patient sex, current Fio(2), and agitation in past 24 hours.
Educational strategies and institutional protocols focused on improving use of DIS need to consider the various nurse- and patient-related factors that affect DIS performance by nurses in the ICU.

0 Followers
 · 
102 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introducción El óptimo manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium ofrece al paciente crítico comodidad y seguridad, facilita el buen desarrollo de medidas de soporte y manejo integral y disminuye complicaciones, impactando en un mejor desenlace. Objetivo Actualizar la Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo publicada en Medicina Intensiva en el 2007 y dar recomendaciones para el manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium. Metodología Se reunió un grupo de 21 intensivistas procedentes de 9 países de la Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva, 3 de ellos además especialistas en epidemiología clínica y metodología para elaboración de guías. Se acogió la propuesta del Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group para emitir el grado de recomendación y evaluar la calidad de la evidencia. La fuerza de las recomendaciones fue calificada como 1 = fuerte, o 2 = débil, y la calidad de la evidencia como A = alta, B = moderada, o C = baja. Expertos en búsqueda de literatura apoyaron con esta estrategia de búsqueda: MEDLINE a través de PUBMED, bases de datos de la biblioteca Cochrane a través de The Cochrane Library y la base de datos Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud. Los miembros asignados a las 11 secciones de la guía, basándose en la revisión de la literatura, presentaron las recomendaciones, sustentadas y discutidas en sesiones plenarias, aprobando aquellas que superaron el 80% del consenso. La elaboración de las guías contó con el soporte de la Asociación Colombiana de Medicina Crítica y Cuidado Intensivo. Resultados Para la elaboración de la guía fueron finalmente seleccionadas 467 referencias, observándose un importante aumento en el número y calidad de los estudios, permitiendo realizar 64 fuertes recomendaciones con evidencia alta y moderada, contrastando con las 28 de la edición anterior. Conclusiones Esta guía contiene recomendaciones y sugerencias basadas en la mejor evidencia para el manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium del paciente crítico, incluyendo un paquete de medidas (bundle). Se destacan: evaluación del dolor y la agitación/sedación mediante escalas; usar inicialmente opioides para el control de la analgesia, adicionando técnicas multimodales para disminuir consumo de opioides; promover el menor nivel de sedación necesario, evitando la sobresedación; en caso de requerir medicamentos sedantes, escoger el más apropiado, evitando el uso rutinario de benzodiazepinas; por último, identificar factores de riesgo para delirium, prevenirlo, diagnosticarlo y manejarlo, con el medicamento más conveniente, ya sea haloperidol, antipsicóticos atípicos o dexmedetomidina, evitando el uso de benzodiazepinas y disminuyendo el uso de opioides.
    11/2013; 37(8):519–574. DOI:10.1016/j.medine.2013.04.002
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionAppropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses.Methods In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents¿ debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent.ResultsResponse rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P <0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P <0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P <0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P <0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P <0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P <0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P <0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P <0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P <0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P <0.001).Conclusions Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession.
    Critical care (London, England) 12/2014; 18(6):655. DOI:10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Within a multicenter randomized trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily interruption (DI), we sought perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians regarding each strategy. At 5 ICUs, we administered a questionnaire daily to nurses and physicians, asking whether they liked using the assigned strategy, reasons for their responses, and concerns regarding DI. A total of 301 questionnaires were completed, for 31 patients (15 protocol only and 16 DI); 117 (59 physicians and 58 nurses) were the first questionnaire completed by that health care provider for that patient and were included in analyses. Most respondents liked using the assigned strategy (81% protocol only and 81% DI); more physicians than nurses liked DI (100% vs 61%; P < .001). Most common reasons for liking the assigned sedation strategy were better neurologic assessment (70% DI), ease of use (58% protocol only), and improved patient outcomes (51% protocol only and 44% DI). Only 19% of clinicians disliked the assigned sedation strategy (equal numbers for protocol only and DI). Respondents' concerns during DI were respiratory compromise (61%), pain (48%), agitation (45%), and device removal (26%). More questionnaires from nurses than physicians expressed concerns about DI. Most respondents liked both sedation strategies. Nurses and physicians had different preferences and rationales for liking or disliking each strategy. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Critical Care 10/2014; 30(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.10.021 · 2.19 Impact Factor