Are Anesthesia Providers Ready for Hypnosis? Anesthesia Providers' Attitudes Toward Hypnotherapy

Avoiding pain during propofol injection in pediatric anesthesia: Hypnoanalgesia of the hand versus intravenous lidocaine

INTRODUCTION

Pain related to injection of propofol during induction of anesthesia decreases from 66.8% without prevention, to 22-31% of cases when lidocaine is associated. Hypnoanalgesia of the hand is currently used for painful procedures in children but has never been evaluated in this indication. The primary aim of this prospective randomized single-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of hypnoanalgesia of the hand for the prevention of moderate to severe pain during intravenous injection of propofol alone in comparison to lidocaine admixture. The secondary aim was to compare the global satisfaction of children in both methods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred patients aged 7-14 years, ASA 1-2, admitted for scheduled surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group L received a mixture of 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) and 1% Lidocaine (0.3 mg/kg). Group H received 1% propofol (3 mg/kg) after hypnoanalgesia of the hand realized by a single experimented operator. A video was made in order to evaluate the pain related to propofol injection by a blinded observer using the 4-point score of Cameron (painful ≥ 2). The global satisfaction of children was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit and documented if visual analog score was <7/10.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients were analyzed. The rate of painful patients did not differ significantly between groups (8.5% in group H [n = 47] vs 6.1% in group L [n = 49], OR= 0.70; 95% CI [0.13-3.35], p = 0.65), nor did the rate of nonsatisfied patients (10.6 in group H vs. 12.2% in group L, OR = 0.85; 95% CI [0.19-3.65], p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that hypnoanalgesia of the hand alone is effective to prevent the pain related to propofol injection in children. No significant difference was found in comparison with lidocaine admixture nor for pain or satisfaction.

Hypnosis in the operating room: are anesthesiology teams interested and well-informed?

BACKGROUND

Hypnosis can be a beneficial complementary anesthesia technique for a variety of surgical procedures. Despite favorable scientific evidence, hypnosis is still rarely used in the operating room. Obstacles to implementation could be a lack of interest or training, misconceptions, as well as limited knowledge amongst anesthesiology teams. Hence, this study aimed to assess the interest, training, beliefs, and knowledge about hypnosis in the operating room staff.

DESIGN

A questionnaire with 21-items, based on a prior survey, was set up on an online platform. The medical and nursing anesthesiology staff of four Swiss academic and large regional hospitals (N = 754) were invited to participate anonymously through e-mails sent by their hierarchy. Results were analyzed quantitatively.

RESULTS

Between June, 2020 and August, 2021 353 answers were collected (47% response rate). Most (92%) were aware that hypnosis needs specific training, with 14% trained. A large majority of the untrained staff wished to enroll for conversational hypnosis training. There was a strong agreement for hypnosis playing a role in anesthesia. Nevertheless, many of these professionals believed that hypnosis has a limited field of action (53%) or that it would be too time consuming (33%). The reduction of misconceptions was based more on exposure to hypnosis than on training.

CONCLUSION

Overall, anesthesia providers' attitude was in favor of using hypnosis in the operating room. Misconceptions such as a prolongation of the procedure, alteration of consent, lack of acceptability for patients, and limited indications were identified as potential barriers. These deserve to be challenged through proper dissemination of the recent scientific literature and exposure to practice.

Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis

BACKGROUND

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42-62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37-54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019125628.

A pilot survey of clinicians' experiences, attitudes, and interests in hypnosis

Growing evidence supports the use of clinical hypnosis for medical and mental health applications. Most health care professionals lack training in hypnosis, and this may impact their readiness to recommend it. This study examined experiences, attitudes, and interests in hypnosis among health care professionals from a variety of disciplines. Thirty-seven health care professionals completed an online survey prior to attending a talk on hypnosis. Half of survey respondents were physicians or nurses. Most reported no training in hypnosis (70.3%), but half had previously experienced hypnosis. Participants displayed an understanding of common myths and misconceptions regarding hypnosis and felt hypnosis could be useful in health care settings. Despite this, the majority indicated they are rarely or never asked about hypnosis by their patients. A significant majority of survey participants believed individuals providing hypnosis should have both training and certification.

Positions of French Nurses Regarding the use of Hypnotherapy to Relieve Pain in Postoperative Settings

The objective of this study was to carry out a detailed mapping of the different personal positions of French nurses concerning the practice of hypnotherapy. Factorial design was used to assess the impact of 4 situational factors: type of postoperative care and degree of pain associated with it (chemotherapy, wound cleansing and bandaging, or body grooming that leads to pain on mobilization); whether paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) was administrated along with hypnosis or not; professional credentials of the hypnotherapist; and patient's identity (adult, young person, elderly person, or young person with learning difficulties). A combination of scenario technique and cluster analysis was implemented. Participants were 91 registered nurses and, for comparison, 19 nurse's aides, 9 physicians, 5 psychologists, and 77 laypersons. Seven qualitatively different positions were found. Only a minority of French nurses were convinced that hypnotherapy is an indisputably acceptable practice in postoperative care. Most of them were indifferent to the issue as long as pain medication was used. Nurses' views appeared to be similar to physicians' views.

Feasibility of a Behavioral Intervention to Reduce Psychological Distress in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Many survivors of acute respiratory failure suffer from mood disorders following discharge from the hospital. We investigated the feasibility of intensivists delivering psychological support based on positive suggestion (PSBPS) to 20 intubated patients to reduce their psychological distress. Thirteen patients completed follow-up surveys. Of those, 9 remembered the intensive care unit physician talking to them, and 7 described it as comforting. Five patients (38%) met criteria for anxiety, depression, and acute stress. In comparison to historical controls, intervention may be associated with lower estimated odds of anxiety. PSBPS can be performed with patients in parallel with medical treatment to potentially reduce psychological morbidity and to humanize critical care. A larger randomized study is warranted to assess the efficacy of PSBPS.

Clinical Hypnosis for Chronic Pain in Outpatient Integrative Medicine: An Implementation and Training Model

Introduction: Clinical hypnosis for pain management cultivates specific skills to enhance general self-regulation and address pain. Hypnosis is well suited to integrative medicine settings; however, questions persist about its feasibility. This article describes a financially viable hypnosis practice model implemented in an integrative medicine clinic, providing initial feasibility data about rates of referral, participation, reimbursement, and provider retention. The specific processes required to establish and implement hypnosis services were detailed, including instruction in billing, reimbursement data, and a training model to enhance reach of services. Materials and methods: Insurer reimbursement data and operational costs were examined from three hypnosis groups conducted between September 2017 and March 2018. Furthermore, information on referral patterns and enrollment in treatment was collected from program initiation in September 2017 to January 2019. Provider retention in training with the expansion of supervision in the program's second year was also examined. Results: Of 258 individuals referred to hypnosis, 124 (48%) enrolled in group treatment. Analysis of insurer reimbursement over a subset of enrollees from three completed groups (N = 26) indicated an average collection of $95.85 per patient per session, equating to $706.86 per patient for the eight-session treatment. This extrapolates to $4,926.82 in total per seven-person group for the entirety of the eight-session treatment. After an annual training workshop, provider retention significantly increased (to 81% of eligible trained providers) with the initiation of twice-monthly clinical supervision focusing on transitioning from training to practice. Conclusion: This analysis indicates that a training- and practice-based research model of clinical hypnosis is feasible and financially sustainable in an integrative medicine setting.

Attitudes Toward Hypnosis Based on Source of Information and Experience With Hypnosis

Attitudes and beliefs toward hypnosis are relevant in promoting hypnotic responses, in predicting the efficacy of interventions that include hypnosis, and in reducing iatrogenic effects in hypnotized individuals. The goal of the present study is to test the impact of previous knowledge about hypnosis and past experiences being hypnotized on attitudes and beliefs about hypnosis. A sample of 1,977 Portuguese students participated in the study; they responded to the Valencia Scale of Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Hypnosis-Client Version (VSABH-C) on two different occasions (test-retest method). Significant differences were found (p ≤ 0.001) on participants' attitudes and beliefs about hypnosis depending on the source of knowledge about hypnosis. Results also showed significant differences (p ≤ 0.001) in the multivariate profile analysis of the scale's factors based on whether participants had a previous history of hypnosis and depending on who hypnotized them. Participants who reported no previous knowledge about hypnosis or who acquired their knowledge from nonscientific sources scored significantly higher in the negative factors (fear, memory, magical, and marginal), therefore reporting more negative beliefs. Likewise, these participants scored lower in the positive factors (help, control, collaboration, and interest). Participants who had been previously hypnotized showed higher scores in the positive factors. In addition, when hypnosis had been utilized by a psychologist, these scores were even higher. However, some participants who had been previously hypnotized scored high in some of the negative factors (memory and magical), which indicates that some professionals using hypnosis are fostering some misconceptions about hypnosis.

Impact of hypnosis on patient experience after venous access port implantation

INTRODUCTION

Hypnosis has been reported to decrease pain and anxiety in surgical context, but data studying its impact on patient experience using a validated scale are scarce. In the present study, we assessed the effect of an audio hypnosis session on patient satisfaction during venous access port implantation under local anaesthesia in adult cancer patients using the EVAN-LR Score.

METHODS

After informed consent, patients were randomised to receive either hypnosis or standard care. The hypnosis group listened to a 26 minutes recorded audio hypnosis session through the ongoing implantation procedure. The primary outcome was the result of the EVAN-LR questionnaire, assessing perioperative experience in patients undergoing anaesthesia without loss of consciousness. This score describes a global index and 5 dimensions of experience: comfort, pain attention, information and waiting. It is scaled from 0 to 100 with 100 indicating the best possible level of satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included patient's anxiety, heart rate before and after procedure, procedure duration and several Visual Analogic Scale to match EVAN-LR dimensions.

RESULTS

Overall, 148 patients were enrolled in the study. The global index of Evan-LR was significantly higher in the hypnosis session group (78 ± 14) compared to the standard care group (71 ± 17) (P = 0.006). No difference was reported in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A recorded audio hypnosis session during subcutaneous venous port implantation under local anaesthesia in cancer patients significantly improved patient satisfaction.

Impact of a preoperative conversational hypnotic session on propofol consumption using closed-loop anesthetic induction guided by the bispectral index: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The automated administration of propofol in a closed loop could be used to objectively evaluate the nonpharmacological anesthetic action of hypnotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a conversational hypnosis session on the consumption of propofol for anesthetic induction.

DESIGN

A randomized, usual care-controlled, single-center, patient-blind trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care center in France from November 2012 to December 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients scheduled for a surgical procedure under general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Before surgery, patients were randomized with a computer-generated random list for a preoperative conversational hypnosis session or for usual care. The conversational hypnosis session was conducted and individualized by the therapist with an academic degree in hypnosis in a quiet environment. Anesthetic induction was automatically performed by propofol without opioids and was assisted by the bispectral index in a closed loop.

OUTCOME

Primary endpoint was the propofol dose required for anesthesia induction, defined as a Bispectral index less than 60 for at least 30 seconds.

RESULTS

The study included 48 patients in the hypnosis group and 49 patients in the control group. No difference in propofol consumption to obtain anesthesia induction was observed between the groups (total dose: 138.6 [67.5] and 130 [47.9] mg, P = .47; adjusted dose: 2.15 [1.09] and 1.95 [0.66] mg/kg, P = .28, for the hypnosis and control groups, respectively). Hetero-evaluation of arm movement during propofol injection (no reaction: 98% and 74%; P = .004, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) and face reaction at venous access placement (no reaction 59% and 30%; P = .017, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) were lower in the hypnosis group. No adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in propofol consumption was observed in this study designed to evaluate the effect of a hypnotic conversational session on anesthesia induction using an automated tool for propofol administration.