Withdrawal assessment in the pediatric intensive care unit: Quantifying a morbidity of pain and sedation management in the critically ill child*:

Nursing judgement and decision-making using the Sedation Withdrawal Score (SWS) in children

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate registered children's nurses' approaches to the assessment and management of withdrawal syndrome in children.

BACKGROUND

Assessment of withdrawal syndrome is undertaken following critical illness when the child's condition may be unstable with competing differential diagnoses. Assessment tools aim to standardize and improve recognition of withdrawal syndrome. Making the right decisions in complex clinical situations requires a degree of mental effort and it is not known how nurses make decisions when undertaking withdrawal assessments.

DESIGN

Cognitive interviews with clinical vignettes.

METHODS

Interviews were undertaken with 12 nurses to explore the cognitive processes they used when assessing children using the Sedation Withdrawal Score (SWS) tool. Interviews took place in Autumn 2013.

FINDINGS

Each stage of decision-making-noticing, interpreting and responding-presented cognitive challenges for nurses. When defining withdrawal behaviours nurses tended to blur the boundaries between Sedation Withdrawal Score signs. Challenges in interpreting behaviours arose from not knowing if the patient's behaviour was a result of withdrawal or other co-morbidities. Nurses gave a range of diagnoses when interpreting the vignettes, despite being provided with identical information. Treatment responses corresponded to definite withdrawal diagnoses, but varied when nurses were unsure of the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive interviews with vignettes provided insight into nurses' judgement and decision-making. The SWS does not standardize the assessment of withdrawal due to the complexity of the context where assessments take place and the difficulties of determining the cause of equivocal behaviours in children recovering from critical illness.

Babies breaking bad: neonatal and iatrogenic withdrawal syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will summarize the symptoms, evaluation, and treatment of neonatal and iatrogenic withdrawal syndromes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Buprenorphine is emerging as the drug of choice for maintaining opioid-dependent women during pregnancy, because of its association with less severe withdrawal symptoms. Recent findings suggest it may be the drug of choice for treating the opioid-exposed neonate as well.

SUMMARY

Healthcare workers should be cognizant of the risk factors for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), as well as its symptoms, so that nonpharmalogic and pharmacologic therapies can be initiated. With increased emphasis on pain control in children, it is likely that iatrogenic withdrawal will continue to be a concern, and healthcare workers should understand the similarities and differences between this and NAS.

The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were obtained for each sedative. The MHRA were requested to provide reports relating to the use of each drug as a sedative in children under the age of 16. Medline was searched to identify RCTs, controlled clinical trials, observational studies, case reports and series. 288 abstracts were identified for midazolam and 16 for clonidine with full texts obtained for 80 and 6 articles respectively. Thirty-three studies provided data for midazolam and two for clonidine. The majority of data has come from observational studies and case reports. The MHRA provided details of 10 and 3 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

No adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.