Assessing pain in critically ill sedated patients by using a behavioral pain scale

Validation of a Behavioral Pain Scale in Critically Ill, Sedated, and Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Assessing pain in critically ill patients, particularly in nonverbal patients, is a great challenge. In this study, we validated a behavioral pain scale (BPS) in critically ill, sedated, and mechanically ventilated patients. The BPS score was the sum of 3 subscales that have a range score of 1-4: facial expression, upper limb movements, and compliance with mechanical ventilation. Two assessors observed and scored pain simultaneously with the BPS at rest and during painful procedures. The psychometric properties of the BPS that were studied were reliability, validity, and responsiveness. We achieved 360 observations in 30 patients. The BPS was internally reliable (Cronbach alpha = 0.72). The intraclass correlation coefficient to evaluate inter-rater reliability was high (0.95). Validity was demonstrated by the change in BPS scores, which were significantly higher during painful procedures, with averages of 3.9 +/- 1.1 at rest and 6.8 +/- 1.9 during procedures (P < 0.001), and by the principal components factor analysis, which revealed a large first-factor accounting for 65% of the variance in pain expression. The BPS exhibited excellent responsiveness, with an effect size ranging from 2.2 to 3.4. This study demonstrated that the BPS can be valid and reliable for measuring pain in noncommunicative intensive care unit patients.

Remifentanil versus fentanyl for short-term analgesia-based sedation in mechanically ventilated postoperative children

BACKGROUND

Analgesia-based sedation techniques are becoming more established in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The aim of this study was to compare remifentanil and fentanyl infusions for postoperative analgesia in pediatric ICU patients.

METHODS

After receiving ethical committee approval, a prospective randomized, double-blind study was performed. Twenty-two postoperative orthopedic surgery patients received either remifentanil 0.1 microg.kg(-1).min(-1) or fentanyl 0.025 microg.kg(-1).min(-1) infusions diluted to the same volume. Analgesic infusion was titrated to predefined levels of analgesia [behavioral pain scale (BPS) score of 3]. Propofol was added if sedation was unsatisfactory after BPS score 3 had been achieved.

RESULTS

There were no differences in groups regarding demographics, tracheal extubation times, and pain scores of the patients. After cessation of the opioid infusion, the sedation scores and the heart rates were always higher in the remifentanil group compared with the fentanyl group. The incidences of nausea, vomiting, apnea, desaturation, reintubation within 24 h and constipation were also similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that a remifentanil infusion provides clinically comparable analgesia with a fentanyl infusion in mechanically ventilated postoperative pediatric patients. These two drugs are suitable for short-term analgesia-based sedation in pediatric postoperative ICU patients.

Large-scale implementation of sedation and delirium monitoring in the intensive care unit: a report from two medical centers

OBJECTIVE

To implement sedation and delirium monitoring via a process-improvement project in accordance with Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines and to evaluate the challenges of modifying intensive care unit (ICU) organizational practice styles.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

The medical ICUs at two institutions: the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and a community Veterans Affairs hospital (York-VA).

SUBJECTS

Seven hundred eleven patients admitted to the medical ICUs for >24 hrs and followed over 4,163 days during a 21-month study period.

INTERVENTIONS

Unit-wide nursing documentation was changed to accommodate a sedation scale (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and delirium instrument (Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU). A 20-min introductory in-service was performed for all ICU nurses, followed by graded, staged educational interventions at regular intervals. Data were collected daily for compliance, and randomly 40% of nurses each day were chosen for accuracy spot-checks by reference raters. An implementation survey questionnaire was distributed at 6 months.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The implementation project involved 64 nurses (40 at VUMC and 24 at York-VA). Sedation and delirium monitoring data were recorded for 711 patients (614 at VUMC and 97 at York-VA). Compliance with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale was 94.4% (21,931 of 23,220) at VUMC and 99.7% (5,387 of 5,403) at York-VA. Compliance with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was 90% (7,323 of 8,166) at VUMC and 84% (1,571 of 1,871) at York-VA. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was performed more often than requested on 63% of shifts (5,146 of 8,166) at VUMC and on 8% (151 of 1871) of shifts at York-VA. Overall weighted-kappa between bedside nurses and references raters for the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale were 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.92) at VUMC and 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.83) at York-VA. Overall agreement (kappa) between bedside nurses and reference raters using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.94) at VUMC and 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.81) at York-VA. The two most-often-cited barriers to implementation were physician buy-in and time.

CONCLUSIONS

With minimal training, the compliance of bedside nurses using sedation and delirium instruments was excellent. Agreement of data from bedside nurses and a reference-standard rater was very high for both the sedation scale and the delirium assessment over the duration of this process-improvement project.

Effects of sufentanil or ketamine administered in target-controlled infusion on the cerebral hemodynamics of severely brain-injured patients*

OBJECTIVE

The manual injection of a bolus of opioid in patients with brain injury induces an increase in intracranial pressure related to a decrease in mean arterial pressure. Such an effect has not been observed with the use of ketamine. The use of target-controlled infusion would minimize or suppress this adverse effect of opioid. This study evaluated the effects of an increase in plasma concentrations of sufentanil or ketamine administered by target-controlled infusion on cerebral hemodynamics.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Intensive care unit in a trauma center.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to receive sedation consisting of sufentanil-midazolam or ketamine-midazolam using target-controlled infusion. Twenty-four hours after the onset of sedation, the target concentrations of sufentanil or ketamine were doubled for 15 mins. Blood samples were collected to determine the actual plasma concentration of sufentanil and ketamine, before and 15 mins after concentration change.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The baseline values of intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure were similar in both groups. The two-fold increase in drug concentrations did not involve a significant change for intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and mean velocity of middle cerebral artery in both the ketamine and the sufentanil groups. The measured plasma concentrations of sufentanil and ketamine were 0.4 +/- 0.2 ng/mL and 2.6 +/- 2.2 mug/mL, respectively, before the increase in concentrations and 0.7 +/- 0.4 ng/mL and 5.5 +/- 3.8 mug/mL after.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that the increase in sufentanil or ketamine plasma concentrations using a target-controlled infusion is not associated with adverse effects on cerebral hemodynamics in patients with severe brain injury. The use of target-controlled infusion could be of interest in the management of severely brain-injured patients. However, there is a need for specific pharmacokinetic models designed for intensive care unit patients.

Should dying patients be monitored? A reflective analysis of a critical incident

The aim of the article is to highlight, through reflection, important aspects of caring for a dying patient in an intensive care unit. A review of current literature surrounding the monitoring of dying patients. Responsibilities and roles of intensive care nurses when caring for dying patients. Recommendations for a change in practice to reflect the Literature.

Management of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are many new and exciting studies in the sedation literature. Recent studies of new scoring systems to monitor sedation, new medications, and new insights into post-intensive care unit (ICU) sequelae have brought about interesting ideas for achieving an adequate level of sedation of our patients while minimizing complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent literature focuses on monitoring the level of a patient's sedation with new bedside clinical scoring systems and new technology. Outcomes studies have highlighted problems with both inadequate sedation and excessive sedation in regard to patients' post-ICU psychological health. More insight into drug withdrawal and addiction as complications of ICU care were examined. A new medication for sedation in the ICU has been approved for use, but its role is not yet defined.

SUMMARY

Many patients in the ICU receive mechanical ventilation and will require sedative medications. A frequently overlooked cause of agitation in the ventilated patient is pain, and assessing the adequacy of analgesia is an important part of the continuous assessment of a patient. The goal of sedation is to provide relief while minimizing the development of drug dependency and oversedation. Careful monitoring with bedside scoring systems, the appropriate use of medications, and a strategy of daily interruption can lead to diminished time on the ventilator and in the ICU.

A content analysis of forms, guidelines, and other materials documenting end-of-life care in intensive care units

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which data entry forms, guidelines, and other materials used for documentation in intensive care units (ICUs) attend to 6 key end-of-life care (EOLC) domains: 1) patient and family-centered decision making, 2) communication, 3) continuity of care, 4) emotional and practical support, 5) symptom management and comfort care, and 6) spiritual support. A second purpose was to determine how these materials might be modified to include more EOLC content and used to trigger clinical behaviors that might improve the quality of EOLC.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifteen adult ICUs-8 medical, 2 surgical, and 4 mixed ICUs from the United States, and 1 mixed ICU in Canada, all affiliated with the Critical Care End-of-Life Peer Workgroup

METHODS

Physician-nurse teams in each ICU received detailed checklists to facilitate and standardize collection of requested documentation materials. Content analysis was performed on the collected documents, aimed at characterizing the types of materials in use and the extent to which EOLC content was incorporated.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The domain of symptom management and comfort care was integrated most consistently on forms and other materials across the 15 ICUs, particularly pain assessment and management. The 5 other EOLC domains of patient and family centered decision-making, communication, emotional and practical support, continuity of care, and spiritual support were not well-represented on documentation. None of the 15 ICUs supplied a comprehensive EOLC policy or EOLC critical pathway that outlined an overall, interdisciplinary, sequenced approach for the care of dying patients and their families. Nursing materials included more cues for attending to EOLC domains and were more consistently preprinted and computerized than materials used by physicians. Computerized forms concerning EOLC were uncommon. Across the 15 ICUs, there were opportunities to make EOLC- related materials more capable of triggering and documenting specific EOLC clinical behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of EOLC items on ICU formatted data entry forms and other materials capable of triggering and documenting clinician behaviors is limited, particularly for physicians. Standardized scales, protocols, and guidelines exist for many of the EOLC domains and should be evaluated for possible use in ICUs. Whether such materials can improve EOLC has yet to be determined.

Évaluation de la profondeur de la sédation en neuroréanimation : les scores cliniques, les méthodes électrophysiologiques et le BIS

The primary goal of sedation is to achieve security and comfort of mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Delivery of pharmacologic agents must avoid over sedation, which increases morbidity by prolongation of the duration of mechanical ventilation. Similarly, under sedation may favour life-threatening events such as accidental extubation. Many clinical scales have been generated to regularly measure the level of sedation (consciousness and tolerance to the ICU environment). No electrophysiological monitor (BIS) has proved reliability for measuring the depth of sedation or analgesia yet. The presence of brain damage in ICU patients makes the level of sedation impossible to interpret. Glasgow coma scale, which is exclusively devoted to the consciousness domain, is the only recommendation that can be made in neurocritical care at the present time.

Pain Assessment and Management in Critically Ill Intubated Patients: a Retrospective Study

• Background Little research has been done on pain assessment in critical care, especially in patients who cannot communicate verbally.

• Objectives To describe (1) pain indicators used by nurses and physicians for pain assessment, (2) pain management (pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions) undertaken by nurses to relieve pain, and (3) pain indicators used for pain reassessment by nurses to verify the effectiveness of pain management in patients who are intubated.

• Methods Medical files from 2 specialized healthcare centers in Quebec City, Quebec, were reviewed. A data collection instrument based on Melzack’s theory was developed from existing tools. Pain-related indicators were clustered into nonobservable/subjective (patients’ self-reports of pain) and observable/objective (physiological and behavioral) categories.

• Results A total of 183 pain episodes in 52 patients who received mechanical ventilation were analyzed. Observable indicators were recorded 97% of the time. Patients’ self-reports of pain were recorded only 29% of the time, a practice contradictory to recommendations for pain assessment. Pharmacological interventions were used more often (89% of the time) than nonpharmacological interventions (&lt;25%) for managing pain. Almost 40% of the time, pain was not reassessed after an intervention. For reassessments, observable indicators were recorded 66% of the time; patients self-reports were recorded only 8% of the time.

• Conclusions Pain documentation in medical files is incomplete or inadequate. The lack of a pain assessment tool may contribute to this situation. Research is still needed in the development of tools to enhance pain assessment in critically ill intubated patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

Patients frequently display behaviors during procedures that may be pain related. Clinicians often rely on the patient's demonstration of behaviors as a cue to presence of pain. The purpose of this study was to identify specific pain-related behaviors and factors that predict the degree of behavioral responses during the following procedures: turning, central venous catheter insertion, wound drain removal, wound care, tracheal suctioning, and femoral sheath removal.

DESIGN

Prospective, descriptive study.

SETTING

Multiple units in 169 hospitals in United States, Canada, England, and Australia.

PATIENTS

A total of 5,957 adult patients who underwent one of the six procedures.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A 30-item behavior observation tool was used to note patients' behaviors before and during a procedure. By comparing behaviors exhibited before and during the procedure as well as behaviors in those with and without procedural pain (as noted on a 0-10 numeric rating scale), we identified specific procedural pain behaviors: grimacing, rigidity, wincing, shutting of eyes, verbalization, moaning, and clenching of fists. On average, there were significantly more behaviors exhibited by patients with vs. without procedural pain (3.5 vs. 1.8 behaviors; t = 38.3, df = 5072.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-1.8). Patients with procedural pain were at least three times more likely to have increased behavioral responses than patients without procedural pain. A simultaneous regression model determined that 33% of the variance in amount of pain behaviors exhibited during a procedure was explained by three factors: degree of procedural pain intensity, degree of procedural distress, and undergoing the turning procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the strong relationship between procedural pain and behavioral responses, clinicians can use behavioral responses of verbal and nonverbal patients to plan for, implement, and evaluate analgesic interventions.

Management of agitation in the intensive care unit

Although the effective evaluation and management of agitated patients often receives less attention than other aspects of critical illness, it is among the most important and rewarding challenges that face critical care physicians. Key features of effective management include a thorough, organized search for potentially dangerous and correctable causes; a sound understanding of the pharmacology of analgesics and sedatives; and keeping a steady eye on appropriate management goals. In turn, the reward for excellent care will be shorter lengths of stay, more rapid liberation from mechanical ventilation, improved cognition, cost savings, and, perhaps, improved survival.

Assessing Pain Control in Nonverbal Critically Ill Adults

The accurate assessment of pain in nonverbal patients is difficult, with nurses often relying on a variety of methods to determine medication impact. Much of the evidence to date suggests that commonly used indicators of pain may not effectively measure the true extent of distress in patients unable to verbalize their level of discomfort. A recent pilot study of an existing and newly developed pain assessment scale reinforces this concern.

Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment (ATICE): Development and validation of a new sedation assessment instrument

OBJECTIVE

To develop a valid, reliable, and responsive bedside instrument assessing Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment (ATICE) in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

DESIGN

Instrument development and prospective clinimetric evaluation.

SETTING

University-affiliated medical ICU.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with expected mechanical ventilation of >/=12 hrs.

INTERVENTIONS

Administration of ATICE.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Item generation for the ATICE involved focus groups and literature review. The ATICE consists of five items: Awakeness and Comprehension combined in a Consciousness domain, and Calmness, Ventilator Synchrony, and Face Relaxation combined in a Tolerance domain. Clinical sensibility of the ATICE assessed by ten ICU physicians and 20 ICU nurses not involved in the development of the ATICE was rated highly (median values 5-7 on a 7-point scale). The ATICE was administered to 80 patients during a total of 152 assessments. Each assessment was performed by three raters (ICU physician, ICU nurse, research nurse), concomitantly with independent scoring of four scales (Ramsay Scale, Riker Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Comfort Scale) and six visual analog scales. Internal consistency was high, as reflected by Cronbach's alpha for the Consciousness and Tolerance domains of .87 and .67, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the Consciousness and the Tolerance domains ranged from .92 to .99, indicating high interrater reliability. Cross-sectional and longitudinal validity was confirmed for the overall ATICE and the Consciousness and Tolerance domains, as reflected by strong correlations between ATICE and the relevant items or domains of the Ramsay Scale, Riker Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, Comfort Scale, each of the visual analog scales, and the amounts of sedatives and analgesics administered.

CONCLUSIONS

The ATICE measures the adaptation of mechanically ventilated patients to the ICU environment. After rigorous multidisciplinary development, we demonstrated high reliability, validity, and responsiveness of this instrument.

Development of a new pain scale: Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale for sedated adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures

A limited number of studies have addressed pain assessment among sedated patients undergoing a gastrointestinal examination. The Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale is a quick, simple tool that can provide an estimation of the patient's comfort level while sedated. Multiple studies completed in intensive care unit and postanesthesia care unit settings provide ample evidence of the accuracy of behavioral pain scales ratings. In developing the Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale, experienced endoscopy nurses provided suggestions and modifications of descriptive words for behavioral assessment of pain selected from the relevant literature. Three nurses simultaneously rated pain using the scale for 30 procedures. Interrater reliability was high with 82% of observations in total agreement and 17% having one of the three persons disagreeing on the rating. Nurses from four hospitals and one ambulatory facility also evaluated the Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale tool. In this evaluation, 98% of the 52 respondents agreed that the words described what they observed during a gastrointestinal examination and 94% felt it was a better descriptor of pain than a patient self-report numerical scale. Assessment of pain for the sedated patient undergoing gastrointestinal procedures is often difficult due to the patient's inability to report pain levels. The sedated patient undergoing painful procedures depends on the nurse to interpret physical signs to quantify his or her distress. The Acute Pain Management Guidelines (AHCPR, 1992) promotes the use of both physiological and behavioral responses to pain for assessment when self-report is absent. While an individual's self-report of pain intensity and distress is the most accurate assessment measurement, the validity of a sedated patient's elicited response about pain is questionable. It is the nurse, through observation, who attempts to assess the sedated individual's pain levels.

Characteristics associated with analgesia ordering in the intensive care unit and relationships with outcome

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinical characteristics associated with analgesia utilization in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit.

SUBJECTS

Four hundred adult patients.

SETTING

Twelve-bed medical intensive care unit of an inner-city, university-affiliated hospital.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Collected data included demographics, sedation and neuromuscular blocking agents used, mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic monitoring, Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System score, Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score. Hospital outcome was noted. The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were determined by using multiple logistic regression analyses. Patients' mean age (+/-sd) was 47.8 +/- 17.1 yrs; 58% were male, 84% African-American. Their APACHE II-predicted hospital mortality rate was 33%. Analgesics were used in 36% of patients. There were no differences in demographics, initial LODS score, APACHE II score, and mechanical ventilation use between patients who did and did not receive analgesics. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that analgesic use was independently associated with sedation (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-4.14), neuromuscular blockade (odds ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-13.41), and pulmonary artery flotation catheter utilization (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.20). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 5 days for those who received analgesia compared with 2 for those who did not (p =.0001). The median length of stay in the intensive care unit (4 vs. 2, p <.0001) and hospital (11 vs. 7, p <.0001) was higher in patients who received analgesics. There were no significant differences in intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates between patients who did and did not receive analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive care unit patients for whom analgesics were prescribed have a higher frequency of hemodynamic monitoring and use of sedative and neuromuscular blocking agents, more mechanical ventilation days, and longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay.