Validation of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in Critically Ill Patients With Delirium: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2013 clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the ICU suggest that pain be routinely assessed using a validated pain assessment tool. Currently available tools have only been evaluated in nondelirious critically ill patients, yet delirium can affect as many as 80% of ICU patients. The validated pain assessment tool adopted by our institution is the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool, and the objective of this study was to investigate the validity of this tool in patients with evidence of delirium. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two ICUs within a Canadian tertiary healthcare center. PATIENTS: Forty consecutive adult patients deemed delirious on the day of enrollment using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Serial Critical Care Pain Observation Tool assessments were conducted simultaneously by study personnel and objective nurses at baseline and after nonpainful and painful stimuli. Subjective opinions about pain and objective physical variables (including mean arterial pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation) were collected at the same time points. Discriminant validity was described using paired t tests, whereas internal consistency was described using the Cronbach α statistic. Responsiveness of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool was measured by effect size, and reliability was described as the agreement between raters. Comparisons between the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the subjective assessments and objective measurements were based on positive and negative percent agreement. Critical Care Pain Observation Tool demonstrated excellent discriminant validity as evidenced by a highly statistically and clinically significant change in mean Critical Care Pain Observation Tool scores between baseline and painful procedures (mean difference, 3.13 ± 1.56; p < 0.001; Cohen D, 2.0). Interrater agreement was also excellent (κ > 0.6), and scores between raters were highly correlated (r = 0.957). The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool possessed a high level of internal consistency (overall Cronbach α, 0.778). Percent agreement was found to be greater between the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the nurse's subjective opinion of the presence or absence of pain when compared with that between the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and physiologic variables (80.5% vs 67.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool is a valid pain assessment tool in noncomatose, delirious adult ICU patients who are unable to reliably self-report the presence or absence of pain.

Inappropriate medication administration practices in Canadian adult ICUs: a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients often receive multiple medications via continuous intravenous infusion. Coadministration of multiple medications through the same port of a venous access device often is necessary but requires an assessment of compatibility. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of inappropriate coadministration of continuously infused medications via a Y-site and the use of intravenous catheters in patients in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) in a multicenter, cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: Data pertaining to medication compatibility via Y-site infusion (medication combinations known to be incompatible or not known to be compatible), frequency of specific medications administered via continuous infusion, and catheter use (median number, location, and types of venous catheters) were collected from medical records of 434 patients in the ICUs of 13 teaching hospitals in Canada. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of patients were receiving 2 or more medication infusions simultaneously. Forty episodes of inappropriate coadministration of these infusions were identified in 37 patients. The prevalence of inappropriate coadministration of drugs via a Y-site port in all patients was 8.5% (95% CI 5.8-11.2). The prevalence of incompatible combinations via Y-site in patients with 2 or more medication infusions was 18.7%. Twenty-five of these 37 patients could have had their drug schedules rearranged into acceptable combinations, leaving 12 patients who would have required additional intravenous access to facilitate appropriate medication infusions. Median (range) number of central and peripheral venous access devices inserted per patient were 1 (0-4) and 1 (0-5), respectively. Seventeen of 95 patients with 2 or more central venous catheters could have had their medication infusions rearranged to render 1 catheter idle. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate Y-site combinations of medications continuously infused in Canadian ICUs are common. Management of medication infusions could, however, have been optimized in most of these situations.

Systematic review of physical and chemical compatibility of commonly used medications administered by continuous infusion in intensive care units.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the physical and chemical stability data published for commonly used continuously infused medications in the intensive care unit and to evaluate the quality of the studies providing these data. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We conducted a systematic electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts as well as the references of electronic drug compatibility textbooks for all English and French language research publications evaluating the physical compatibility or chemical stability of the 820 possible two-drug combinations of 41 commonly used drugs in an adult intensive care unit. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A total of 93 studies comprised of 86 (92%) studies evaluating physical compatibility and 35 (38%) studies evaluating chemical compatibility of at least one drug combination of interest were included. Physical and/or chemical compatibility data exist for only 441 of the possible 820 two-drug combinations (54%), whereas chemical compatibility data exist for only 75 (9%) of the possible combinations. Of the 441 combinations for which compatibility data are available, 67 (15%) represent incompatible combinations and 39 (9%) had conflicting data in which both compatible and incompatible data were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Physical compatibility studies that provide the basis for y-site compatibility are lacking for commonly used medications in intensive care unit patients and may contribute to unsafe medication practices. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in the methodology of these studies likely contributes to the common finding of conflicting data for specific combinations of drugs. Future studies should apply similar methodologic and reporting principles to be able to reproduce and compare outcomes both clinically and in the laboratory.

Standardization of intravenous insulin therapy improves the efficiency and safety of blood glucose control in critically ill adults.

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive glycemic control improves mortality and morbidity in critically ill adults, however implementation of such a strategy can be logistically difficult. This study evaluates the efficiency and safety of a nurse-managed insulin protocol in critically ill adults. DESIGN: Combined retrospective-prospective before-after cohort study. SETTING: Twenty-one bed, medical/surgical ICU in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Two cohorts of 50 consecutive ICU patients requiring insulin infusions. INTERVENTION: Patients in the control cohort received insulin infusions titrated according to target blood glucose ranges and sliding scales at the physician's discretion. Patients in the interventional cohort received an insulin infusion adjusted using a standardized protocol targeting a blood glucose of 4.5-6.1 mmol/l (81-110 mg/dl). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Efficiency was measured by comparing the time to reach, and the time spent within, the target range between cohorts. Safety was assessed by comparing the incidence of severe hypoglycemia, the frequency of rescue dextrose administration and the cumulative time that the infusion was held for hypoglycemia between cohorts. Patients in the interventional cohort reached their target more rapidly (11.3+/-7.9 vs 16.4+/-12.6 h; p=0.028) and maintained their blood glucose within the target range longer (11.5+/-3.7 vs 7.1+/-5.0 h/day; p<0.001) than controls. The standardized protocol yielded a four-fold reduction in the incidence of severe hypoglycemia (4 vs 16%; p=0.046) and reduced the median frequency of dextrose rescue therapy (0 [0-0.91] vs 0.17 [0-1.2] episodes/patient per day; p=0.01) as compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Standardization of intensive insulin therapy improves the efficiency and safety of glycemic control in critically ill adults.

Impaired gastrointestinal transit and its associated morbidity in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: To determine the proportion of critically ill adults developing impaired gastrointestinal transit (IGT) using a clinically pragmatic definition, its associated morbidity and risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Critically ill adult patients receiving enteral nutrition for ≥ 72 hours and mechanically ventilated for ≥ 48 hours were prospectively identified. IGT was defined as absence of a bowel movement for ≥ 3 days, treatment for constipation, and one of the following: (1) radiologic confirmed ileus, (2) feed intolerance, (3) abdominal distention, or (4) gastric decompression. RESULTS: One thousand patients were screened, and 248 were included for analysis. Fifty patients (20.1%; 95% confidence interval, 15.1-25.6%) developed IGT persisting for 6.5 ± 2.5 days. Patients with IGT had longer lengths of intensive care unit stay and were less likely to reach nutrition targets compared to patients without IGT or traditional definitions of constipation. Daily opioid use and pharmacological constipation prophylaxis were identified risk factors for IGT. CONCLUSION: Traditional definitions of constipation or ileus in intensive care unit patients are simplistic and lack clinical relevance. Pragmatically defined IGT is a common complication of critical illness and is associated with significant morbidity. Future interventional studies for IGT in critically ill adults should use a more clinically relevant definition and evaluate energy deficits and lengths of stay as clinically relevant outcomes.

Reliability of point-of-care testing for glucose measurement in critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Glycemic control is increasingly being recognized as a priority in the treatment of critically ill patients. Titration and monitoring of insulin infusions involve frequent blood glucose measurement to achieve target glucose ranges and prevent adverse events related to hypoglycemia. Therefore, it is imperative that bedside glucose testing methods be safe and accurate. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy and clinical impact of three common methods of bedside point-of-care testing for glucose measurements in critically ill patients receiving insulin infusions. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A 21-bed mixed medical/surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty consecutive critically ill patients who were vasopressor-dependent (n = 10), had significant peripheral edema (n = 10), or were admitted following major surgery (n = 10). MEASUREMENTS: Findings from three different methods of glucose measurement were compared with central laboratory measurements: (1) glucose meter analysis of capillary blood (fingerstick); (2) glucose meter analysis of arterial blood; and (3) blood gas/chemistry analysis of arterial blood. Patients were enrolled for a maximum of 3 days and had a maximum of nine sets of measurements determined during this time. RESULTS: Clinical agreement with the central laboratory was significantly better with arterial blood analysis (69.9% and 76.5% for glucose meter and blood gas/chemistry analysis, respectively) than with capillary blood analysis (56.8%; p = .039 and .001, respectively). During hypoglycemia, clinical agreement was only 26.3% with capillary blood analysis and 55.6% and 64.9% for glucose meter and blood gas/chemistry analysis of arterial blood (p = .010 and <.001, respectively). Glucose meter analysis of both arterial and capillary blood tended to provide higher glucose values, whereas blood gas/chemistry analysis of arterial blood tended to yield lower glucose values. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the differences in the glucose values offered by the four different methods of glucose measurement led to frequent clinical disagreements regarding insulin dose titration in the context of an insulin infusion protocol for aggressive glucose control.