Pain, Anxiety, and the Continuous Use of Opioids and Benzodiazepines in Trauma Intensive Care Unit Survivors: An Exploratory Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate at-home opioid and benzodiazepine use, the degrees of pain and anxiety, and the incidence of probable withdrawal in post-discharge Trauma Intensive Care Unit (TICU) survivors. METHODS: This was an exploratory study of post-TICU survivors who had participated in a previous study of opioid and benzodiazepine withdrawal. We surveyed survivors by telephone asking for retrospective information (during their first 4-months postdischarge- Time 1) and current information (around 2-years post-discharge- Time 2). RESULTS: A mostly male (82%), young (median 38 years [IQR, 28-52]) sample of 27 TICU survivors reported using opioids (56%) at Time 1 for a median of 30 (IQR,14-90) days. Twelve percent of 26 survivors were still using opioids at Time 2. Sixty percent of the survivors had pain during Time 1, a median pain score of 6 (IQR, 5-8) on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS).; 57% had pain at Time 2, median NRS score=6 (IQR, 4-7). Sixty-five percent of survivors had anxiety during Time 1, NRS median=7 (IQR, 5-9); 50% had anxiety at Time 2, NRS median= 6 (IQR, 3-7). At Time 1, 26% used prescribed benzodiazepines, and 12% used benzodiazepines at Time 2. Five and one of the 27 patients reported symptoms of opioid or benzodiazepine withdrawal, respectively, upon discontinuation or weaning. CONCLUSION: Many TICU survivors had discontinued opioid/benzodiazepine prescriptions by 4-months post discharge while half reporting pain/anxiety for up to 2-years. Investigating the effects of acute-to-chronic pain in ICU survivors and gaining a better understanding of the mechanisms of prolonged opioid use are warranted.

Bereavement Experiences of Families in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Losing a loved one in the intensive care unit is associated with complicated grief and increased psychologic distress for families. Providing bereavement support may help families during this time. However, little is known about the bereavement experiences of families of patients in the cardiac intensive care unit. OBJECTIVE: To describe the bereavement experiences of families of patients in the cardiac intensive care unit. METHODS: In this secondary analysis, an exploratory, descriptive design was used to understand the families' bereavement experiences. Families from 1 cardiac intensive care unit in a tertiary medical center in the western United States participated. Audiotaped telephone interviews were conducted by using a semistructured interview guide 13 to 15 months after the patient's death. A qualitative, descriptive technique was used for data analysis. Two independent researchers coded the interview transcripts and identified themes. RESULTS: Twelve family members were interviewed. The majority were female (n = 8, 67%), spouses (n = 10, 83%), and White (n = 10, 83%); the mean age (SD) was 58.4 (16.7) years. Five main themes emerged: (1) families' bereavement work included both practical tasks and emotional processing; (2) families' bereavement experiences were individual; (3) these families were resilient and found their own resources and coping mechanisms; (4) the suddenness of a patient's death influenced families' bereavement experiences; and (5) families' experiences in the intensive care unit affected their bereavement. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight into the bereavement experiences of families of patients in the cardiac intensive care unit. These findings may be useful for professionals working with bereaved families and for cardiac intensive care units considering adding bereavement support.

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool-Neuro in brain-injured adults in the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment in brain-injured patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging and existing scales may not be representative of behavioral reactions expressed by this specific group. This study aimed to validate the French-Canadian and English revised versions of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT-Neuro) for brain-injured ICU patients. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in three Canadian and one American sites. Patients with a traumatic or a non-traumatic brain injury were assessed with the CPOT-Neuro by trained raters (i.e., research staff and ICU nurses) before, during, and after nociceptive procedures (i.e., turning and other) and non-nociceptive procedures (i.e., non-invasive blood pressure, soft touch). Patients who were conscious and delirium-free were asked to provide their self-report of pain intensity (0-10). A first data set was completed for all participants (n = 226), and a second data set (n = 87) was obtained when a change in the level of consciousness (LOC) was observed after study enrollment. Three LOC groups were included: (a) unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS 4-8); (b) altered LOC (GCS 9-12); and (c) conscious (GCS 13-15). RESULTS: Higher CPOT-Neuro scores were found during nociceptive procedures compared to rest and non-nociceptive procedures in both data sets (p < 0.001). CPOT-Neuro scores were not different across LOC groups. Moderate correlations between CPOT-Neuro and self-reported pain intensity scores were found at rest and during nociceptive procedures (Spearman rho > 0.40 and > 0.60, respectively). CPOT-Neuro cut-off scores ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 were found to adequately classify mild to severe self-reported pain ≥ 1 and moderate to severe self-reported pain ≥ 5, respectively. Interrater reliability of raters' CPOT-Neuro scores was supported with intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.69. CONCLUSIONS: The CPOT-Neuro was found to be valid in this multi-site sample of brain-injured ICU patients at various LOC. Implementation studies are necessary to evaluate the tool's performance in clinical practice.

Translation into Spanish and Cultural Adaptation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool.

BACKGROUND: The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is recommended for evaluating pain behaviors in patients in the intensive care unit who are unable to report pain. The source of the only published Spanish version of the CPOT does not verify that it underwent a formal translation process. OBJECTIVE: To describe the translation into Spanish and cultural adaptation of the original French version of the CPOT. METHODS: Key persons in the translation process included one with a master's degree in translation, a critical care physician, nurse faculty members with vast experience in intensive care units, and the instrument's developer. This team followed the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures as a guide to translate and culturally adapt the CPOT. RESULTS: The first Spanish-language version was back translated to French and was also compared with the English version. Revisions necessitated a second version, which was submitted to experts in critical care. Their modifications required a third version, which was back translated to French and discussed with the CPOT developer, after which a fourth version was created. Finally, a linguistic expert proofread the tool, and the translation leaders incorporated the recommendations, thereby obtaining a final Spanish version. CONCLUSION: The Spanish version is ready to undergo validation with patients in the intensive care unit, which is the next step toward its use in assessing pain behaviors among patients in intensive care units where Spanish is spoken.

Opioid and Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Syndromes in Trauma ICU Patients: A Prospective Exploratory Study.

Trauma ICU patients may require high and/or prolonged doses of opioids and/or benzodiazepines as part of their treatment. These medications may contribute to drug physical dependence, a response manifested by withdrawal syndrome. We aimed to identify risk factors, symptoms, and clinical variables associated with probable withdrawal syndrome. DESIGN: Prospective exploratory observational study. SETTING: Trauma ICU in large medical center in Puerto Rico. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty patients who received opioids and/or benzodiazepines for greater than or equal to 5 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using an opioid/benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome checklist developed from research in adult ICU patients, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5, and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, we evaluated patients at baseline and for 72 hours after drug weaning was initiated. Patients received opioid/benzodiazepine (88%), opioid (10%), or benzodiazepine (2%). Probable withdrawal syndrome occurred in 44%, questionable withdrawal syndrome in 20%, and no withdrawal syndrome in 18 (36%). Signs that were more frequent in the probable withdrawal syndrome group were agitation, diarrhea, fever, tachypnea, lacrimation, and hyperactive delirium. Patients who developed probable withdrawal syndrome spent almost double the amount of time receiving mechanical ventilation, and length of stay was higher in both ICU and hospital when compared with patients in the other two groups. Age, cumulative opioid dose amounts, and previous drug (opioid/benzodiazepine, cannabis, cocaine, or heroin) use were associated with odds of developing withdrawal syndrome. With the addition of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and delirium to the multilevel analysis, older age no longer had its protective effect, whereas increase in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores, delirium presence, and increased duration of mechanical ventilation were associated with higher odds of withdrawal syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: We identified probable withdrawal syndrome in a sample of trauma ICU patients through observation of several associated symptoms. Significant factors associated with withdrawal syndrome found in this study should be considered when caring for patients being weaned from opioids and/or benzodiazepines. Further validation of the opioid/benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome checklist is recommended.

Occurrence and Practices for Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Intensive Care Unit Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Our study described the occurrence, assessment, prevention, and management practices of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in four intensive care units (ICUs) from the Puerto Rico Medical Center and compared findings with the 2013 PAD guidelines. METHODS: A descriptive study, with repeated bedside measures (two times a day/two times a week) of PAD and review of patient clinical records. RESULTS: Eighty ICU patients (20 per ICU) were evaluated, (median 3 times [IQR, 2-7]). At least once during the assessment period, 57% percent of patients had significant pain and 34% had delirium. Moreover, 46% were deeply sedated, 17.5% had agitation, and 52.5% of patients were within the recommended Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. The Numeric Rating Scale and RASS were the most common tools used by clinicians to evaluate pain and agitation/sedation levels, respectively. Clinicians did not assess pain in patients unable to self-report with any guideline-recommended tools, as was the case for delirium. Fentanyl and morphine were the most commonly used analgesics, while benzodiazepines were used for sedation. CONCLUSION: Although pain, agitation, and delirium occurrence were similar to other studies, patients continue to suffer. A gap exists between clinical practices in these ICUs and current guidelines. Strategies that contribute to integrating guidelines into these ICUs should be developed, studied, and implemented.

Implementing the ABCDEF Bundle: Top 8 Questions Asked During the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative.

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

Common Challenges to Effective ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The ICU Liberation Campaign Experience.

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers.

Opioid and Benzodiazepine Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome in Patients in the Intensive Care Unit.

Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome is an increasingly recognized issue among adult patients in the intensive care unit. The prolonged use of opioids and benzodiazepines during the intensive care unit stay and preexisting disorders associated with their use put patients at risk of developing iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Although research to date is scant regarding iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in adult patients in the intensive care unit, it is important to recognize and adequately manage iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in order to prevent possible negative outcomes during and after a patient's intensive care unit stay. This article discusses in depth 8 studies of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome among adult patients in the intensive care unit. It also addresses important aspects of opioid and benzodiazepine iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, including prevalence, risk factors, and assessment and considers its prevention and management.

A Psychometric Analysis Update of Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools for Noncommunicative, Critically Ill Adults.

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Behaviors Indicative of Pain in Brain-Injured Adult Patients With Different Levels of Consciousness in the Intensive Care Unit.

CONTEXT: Many brain-injured patients are unable to self-report their pain during their hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU), and existing behavioral pain scales may not be well suited. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe and compare behaviors in brain-injured patients with different levels of consciousness during nociceptive and nonnociceptive care procedures in the ICU and to examine interrater agreement of individual behaviors as well as discriminative and criterion validation of putative pain behaviors. METHODS: Brain-injured ICU patients were observed using a 40-item behavioral checklist before and during soft touch (i.e., nonnociceptive procedure), turning, and other care procedures (nociceptive) by pairs of trained raters. When possible, patients self-reported their pain on a 0-10 visual thermometer. Patients were classified into unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale, 3

Pain distress: the negative emotion associated with procedures in ICU patients.

PURPOSE: The intensity of procedural pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is well documented. However, little is known about procedural pain distress, the psychological response to pain. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, multinational study of procedural pain. Pain distress was measured before and during procedures (0-10 numeric rating scale). Factors that influenced procedural pain distress were identified by multivariable analyses using a hierarchical model with ICU and country as random effects. RESULTS: A total of 4812 procedures were recorded (3851 patients, 192 ICUs, 28 countries). Pain distress scores were highest for endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and tracheal suctioning, chest tube removal (CTR), and wound drain removal (median [IQRs] = 4 [1.6, 1.7]). Significant relative risks (RR) for a higher degree of pain distress included certain procedures: turning (RR = 1.18), ETS (RR = 1.45), tracheal suctioning (RR = 1.38), CTR (RR = 1.39), wound drain removal (RR = 1.56), and arterial line insertion (RR = 1.41); certain pain behaviors (RR = 1.19-1.28); pre-procedural pain intensity (RR = 1.15); and use of opioids (RR = 1.15-1.22). Patient-related variables that significantly increased the odds of patients having higher procedural pain distress than pain intensity were pre-procedural pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05); pre-hospital anxiety (OR = 1.76); receiving pethidine/meperidine (OR = 4.11); or receiving haloperidol (OR = 1.77) prior to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural pain has both sensory and emotional dimensions. We found that, although procedural pain intensity (the sensory dimension) and distress (the emotional dimension) may closely covary, there are certain factors than can preferentially influence each of the dimensions. Clinicians are encouraged to appreciate the multidimensionality of pain when they perform procedures and use this knowledge to minimize the patient's pain experience.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Rectal and Bladder Temperatures vs Forehead Core Temperatures Measured With SpotOn Monitoring System.

BACKGROUND: Methods and frequency of temperature monitoring in intensive care unit patients vary widely. The recently available SpotOn system uses zero-heat-flux technology and offers a noninvasive method for continuous monitoring of core temperature of critical care patients at risk for alterations in body temperature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between and precision of a zero-heat-flux thermometry system (SpotOn) and continuous rectal and urinary bladder thermometry during fever and defervescence in adult patients in intensive care units. METHODS: Prospective comparison of SpotOn vs rectal and urinary bladder thermometry in eligible patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on the effect of acetaminophen on core body temperature and hemodynamic status. RESULTS: A total of 748 paired temperature measurements from 38 patients who had both SpotOn monitoring and either continuous rectal or continuous bladder thermometry were analyzed. Temperatures during the study were from 36.6°C to 39.9°C. The mean difference for SpotOn compared with bladder thermometry was -0.07°C (SD, 0.24°C; 95% limits of agreement, ± 0.47°C [-0.54°C, 0.40°C]). The mean difference for SpotOn compared with rectal thermometry was -0.24°C (SD, 0.29°C; 95% limits of agreement, ± 0.57°C [-0.81°C, 0.33°C]). Most differences in temperature between methods were within ± 0.5°C in both groups (96% bladder and 85% rectal). CONCLUSIONS: The SpotOn thermometry system has excellent agreement and good precision and is a potential alternative for noninvasive continuous monitoring of core temperature in critical care patients, especially when alternative methods are contraindicated or not available.

Content validation of behaviours and autonomic responses for the assessment of pain in critically ill adults with a brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The evidence shows that brain-injured patients express behaviours that are related to their level of consciousness (LOC), and different from other patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, existing behavioural scales should be revised to enhance their content and validity for use in these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the content relevance of behaviours and autonomic responses for pain assessment of brain-injured ICU patients from the perspective of critical care clinicians. METHODS: A total of 77 clinicians from four adult neuroscience ICUs (three from Canada and one from the United States) participated in this descriptive study. A physician/nurse ratio of 21% (13/61) was reached in this quota sample, and three physiotherapists also participated. They completed a content validation questionnaire of 19 items rated on clarity and relevance based on the patient's LOC. Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), and modified kappa (κ*) were calculated. Values higher than 0.78 and 0.75 respectively were considered excellent. RESULTS: Regardless of the patient's LOC, brow lowering, grimacing, and trying to reach the pain site were rated as the most relevant behaviours by clinicians, with excellent values of I-CVI>0.78 and κ*>0.75. Eyes tightly closed, moaning and verbal complaints of pain also obtained excellent values in altered LOC and conscious patients. Eye weeping obtained excellent values only in conscious patients. Other items showed fair (0.40-0.59) to good (0.60-0.74) values, while blinking and coughing showed poor values (<0.40) at various LOC. CONCLUSIONS: Facial expressions, movements towards the pain site, and vocalisation of pain were the most relevant pain-related behaviours rated by critical care clinicians. The relevance of some behaviours (e.g., moaning and verbal complaints of pain) varied across LOCs, thereby calling forth adaptations of behavioural pain scales to allow for interpretation in the context of a patient's LOC and ability to express specific behaviours.

Implementing the SCCM Family-Centered Care Guidelines in Critical Care Nursing Practice.

Family-centered care is an important component of holistic nursing practice, particularly in critical care, where the impact on families of admitted patients can be physiologically and psychologically burdensome. Family-centered care guidelines, developed by an international group of nursing, medical, and academic experts for the American College of Critical Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine, explore the evidence base in 5 key areas of family-centered care. Evidence in each of the guideline areas is outlined and recommendations are made about how critical care nurses can use this information in family-centered care practice.