Occurrence and characteristics of pain after ICU discharge: A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a serious problem for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but we are lacking data on pain at the hospital ward after ICU discharge. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe pain intensity, -interference with function and -location in patients up to 1 year after ICU discharge. To identify demographic and clinical variables and their association with worst pain intensity and pain interference. DESIGN: A longitudinal descriptive secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial on nurse-led follow-up consultations on post-traumatic stress and sense of coherence after ICU discharge. METHODS: Pain intensity, -interference, and -location were measured using Brief Pain Inventory at the hospital ward and 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge. For associations, data were analysed using multivariate linear mixed models for repeated measures. RESULTS: Of 523 included patients, 68% reported worst pain intensity score above 0 (no pain) at the ward. Estimated means for worst pain intensity and -interference (from 0 to 10) after ICU discharge were 5.5 [CI 4.6-6.5] and 4.5 [CI 3.7-5.3], and decreased to 3.8 [CI 2.8-4.8] (P ≤ .001) and 2.9 [CI 2.1-3.7] after 12 months (P ≤ .001). Most common pain locations were abdomen (43%), lower lumbar back (28%), and shoulder/forearm (22%). At 12 months, post-traumatic stress (PTS) symptoms ≥25 (scale 10-70), female gender, shorter ICU stay, and more traumatic ICU memories were significantly associated with higher worst pain intensity. PTS symptoms ≥25, female gender, more traumatic ICU memories, younger age, and not having an internal medical diagnosis were significantly associated with higher pain interference. CONCLUSIONS: Early after ICU discharge pain was present in 68% of patients. Thereafter, pain intensity and -interference declined, but pain intensity was still at a moderate level at 12 months. Health professionals should be aware of patients' pain and identify potentially vulnerable patients. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Longitudinal assessment of factors associated with pain early after ICU discharge and the following year is a first step that could improve follow-up focus and contribute to reduced development of chronic pain.

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.

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.

Family members' opinions about bereavement care after cardiac intensive care unit patients' deaths.

BACKGROUND: Critical care consensus groups recommend providing bereavement support; however, little is known about what cardiac intensive care patients' families would find useful and beneficial in their grieving process. AIM AND OBJECTIVES: To describe cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients' families' opinions on six common components of a bereavement programme. DESIGN: Qualitative, exploratory and descriptive. METHODS: Families were recruited from a cardiac ICU 13-15 months after their loved one's death. Families were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. The research team analysed interview transcripts to assess and categorize families' opinions on six bereavement components. RESULTS: Twelve family members were interviewed. Most were female (n = 8, 67%), spouses (n = 10, 83%) and white (n = 10, 83%), with a mean age (SD) of 58.4 years (16.7). Families' overall opinions of the bereavement brochure were positive, stating it was helpful in providing information about the grieving process. Families described the sympathy card as "meaningful" and "touching," although they rated it neutral in providing comfort. Most participants felt that a follow-up telephone call was unnecessary except to answer lingering questions they had. Many participants favoured the unit offering counselling services because they found therapy helpful in their grieving process. Participants had mixed feelings about a memory box; they believed it was an individual preference and should be handled in a sensitive manner. Most would not have attended a memorial service if offered because of traffic, distance, concerns about stressful feelings on returning to the hospital or because they already honoured their loved ones through a personalized memorial service. CONCLUSIONS: Participants varied in their opinions about what bereavement services may be useful; however, this study provides insight about services that cardiac critical care units may consider when adding bereavement support. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Family perspectives about bereavement needs can help structure services offered by critical care units.

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.

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.

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.

Effects of IV Acetaminophen on Core Body Temperature and Hemodynamic Responses in Febrile Critically Ill Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of IV acetaminophen on core body temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate in febrile critically ill patients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Three adult ICUs at a large, urban, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Forty critically ill adults with fever (core temperature, ≥ 38.3°C). INTERVENTION: An infusion of acetaminophen 1 g or saline placebo over 15 minutes. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Core temperature and vital signs were measured at baseline and at 5-15-minute intervals for 4 hours after infusion of study drug. The primary outcome was time-weighted average core temperature adjusted for baseline temperature. Secondary outcomes included adjusted time-weighted average heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate, along with changes-over-time for each. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in those given acetaminophen and placebo. Patients given acetaminophen had an adjusted time-weighted average temperature that was 0.47°C less than those given placebo (95% CI, -0.76 to -0.18; p = 0.002). The acetaminophen group had significantly lower adjusted time-weighted average systolic blood pressure (-17 mm Hg; 95% CI, -25 to -8; p < 0.001), mean arterial pressure (-7 mm Hg; 95% CI, -12 to -1; p = 0.02), and heart rate (-6 beats/min; 95% CI, -10 to -1; p = 0.03). Changes-over-time temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate outcomes were also significantly lower at 2 hours, but not at 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Among febrile critically ill adults, treatment with acetaminophen decreased temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate. IV acetaminophen thus produces modest fever reduction in critical care patients, along with clinically important reductions in blood pressure.

Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. METHODS: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

Recovery after critical illness: putting the puzzle together-a consensus of 29.

In this review, we seek to highlight how critical illness and critical care affect longer-term outcomes, to underline the contribution of ICU delirium to cognitive dysfunction several months after ICU discharge, to give new insights into ICU acquired weakness, to emphasize the importance of value-based healthcare, and to delineate the elements of family-centered care. This consensus of 29 also provides a perspective and a research agenda about post-ICU recovery.

Patient Recollection of ICU Procedural Pain and Post ICU Burden: The Memory Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' recollections of in-ICU procedural pain and its impact on post-ICU burden. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study of patients who underwent ICU procedures. SETTING: Thirty-four ICUs in France and Belgium. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-six patients who had undergone ICU procedures. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were interviewed 3-16 months after hospitalization about: 1) recall of procedural pain intensity and pain distress (on 0-10 numeric rating scale); 2) current pain; that is, having pain in the past week that was not present before hospitalization; and 3) presence of traumatic stress (Impact of Events Scale). For patients who could rate recalled procedural pain intensity (n = 56) and pain distress (n = 43), both were significantly higher than their median (interquartile range) in ICU procedural pain scores (pain intensity: 5 [4-7] vs 3 [2.5-5], p < 0.001; pain distress: 5 [2-6] vs 2 [0-6], p = 0.003, respectively.) Current pain was reported in 14% of patients. When comparing patients with and without current pain, patients with current pain recalled even greater ICU procedural pain intensity and pain distress scores than patients without current pain: pain intensity, 8 (6-8) versus 5 (3.25-7); p = 0.002 and pain distress, 7 (5-8) versus 4 (2-6); p = 0.01, respectively. Patients with current pain also had significantly higher Impact of Events Scale scores than those without current pain (8.5 [3.5-24] vs 2 [0-10]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Many patients remembered ICU, with far fewer able to rate procedure-associated pain. For those able to do so, recalled pain intensity and pain distress scores were significantly greater than reported in ICU. One in seven patients was having current pain, recalling even higher ICU procedural pain scores and greater traumatic stress when compared with patients without current pain. Studies are needed to assess the impact of ICU procedural pain on post-ICU pain recall, pain status over time, and the relationship between postdischarge pain status and post-ICU burden.

Chronic pain disorders after critical illness and ICU-acquired opioid dependence: two clinical conundra.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Is to describe the potential for patients to undergo an acute-to-chronic pain transition after ICU discharge as a result of pain they experienced in ICU and to explore the phenomenon of ICU-acquired opioid dependence. Both topics are timely, in that they can negatively influence patient recovery after critical illness and contribute to post-ICU syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: Recognizing and treating pain in patients while they are in the ICU has always been important. However, new knowledge increases the importance of good pain management on patient welfare: recent basic science discoveries on mechanisms of chronic pain development; identification of myriad factors, occurring during the patient's hospital and ICU stay, that put patients at risk for development of chronic pain; the view that a multimodal analgesia treatment approach that is opioid sparing may be the optimum method for acute pain management. Furthermore, recent findings about ICU-acquired opioid dependence provide a foundation for promoting more rigorous assessment, prevention, and treatment of opioid withdrawal in ICU patients. SUMMARY: Providing sufficient analgesia to ICU patients while preventing opioid dependence and withdrawal is essential to promote comfort and rehabilitation. Obtaining this balance requires heightened ICU clinician attention and focused research.

Prevalence and Predictors of Prehospital Pain Assessment and Analgesic Use in Military Trauma Patients, 2010-2013.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the most common symptom in patients presenting for prehospital (PH) care. Research in civilian emergency medical systems has shown wide variability in PH pain assessment and analgesic practices, yet a minimal amount is known about pain assessment and analgesic intervention practices in the military, particularly when PH care is delivered in a combat zone. OBJECTIVE: To describe prehospital (PH) pain care practices for U.S. military personnel injured in Iraq and Afghanistan 2010-2013 and explore potential relationships to explain variation. METHODS: An exploratory retrospective, cross-sectional study of Department of Defense Trauma Registry data from 2010 to 2013 was performed. Demographic, clinical, or health system variables for associations with three outcomes: 1) pain assessment documentation; 2) pain severity (0-10 scale); and 3) analgesic administration (yes/no). Including only variables with significant associations, backward stepwise regression was used to develop explanatory models for each outcome. RESULTS: Patient records (n = 3,317) were evaluated for documentation of PH pain assessment and analgesic administration. The prevalence of PH pain score documentation was 37.8% (n = 1,253). Overall, the proportion of records with PH pain scores increased over time: 19.8% (2010), 35.1% (2011), 58.2% (2012), and 62.2% (2013). Severity of pain scores ranged 0-10; mean = 5.5 (SD = 3.1); median = 6 (IQR = 3-8). Analgesics were reported for 50.8% (n = 1,684), of whom 38.3% had a pain severity score documented. The pain assessment documentation model included any documented vital signs, injury year, and mechanism of injury and explained 19.3% of the variance in documentation. The pain severity model included vital signs and injury severity score (ISS) and explained 5.0% of the variance in severity. The analgesic model included any vital signs, pain severity, trauma type, mechanism of injury, ISS, and year. CONCLUSIONS: Pain assessment and treatment documentation improved each year, but remain suboptimal. Available data yielded poor prediction of the outcomes of interest, emphasizing the importance of individual assessment. Analgesic effectiveness could not be evaluated.

Patient and family involvement in adult critical and intensive care settings: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Despite international bodies calling for increased patient and family involvement, these concepts remain poorly defined within literature on critical and intensive care settings. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review investigates the extent and range of literature on patient and family involvement in critical and intensive care settings. Methodological and empirical gaps are identified, and a future agenda for research into optimizing patient and family involvement is outlined. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts and PsycINFO were conducted. English-language articles published between 2003 and 2014 were retrieved. Articles were included if the studies were undertaken in an intensive care or critical care setting, addressed the topic of patient and family involvement, included a sample of adult critical care patients, their families and/or critical care providers. Two reviewers extracted and charted data and analysed findings using qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: A total of 892 articles were screened, 124 were eligible for analysis, including 61 quantitative, 61 qualitative and 2 mixed-methods studies. There was a significant gap in research on patient involvement in the intensive care unit. The analysis identified five different components of family and patient involvement: (i) presence, (ii) having needs met/being supported, (iii) communication, (iv) decision making and (v) contributing to care. CONCLUSION: Three research gaps were identified that require addressing: (i) the scope, extent and nature of patient involvement in intensive care settings; (ii) the broader socio-cultural processes that shape patient and family involvement; and (iii) the bidirectional implications between patient/family involvement and interprofessional teamwork.

Demographic, Clinical, and Health System Characteristics Associated With Pain Assessment Documentation and Pain Severity in U.S. Military Patients in Combat Zone Emergency Departments, 2010-2013.

Emergency department (ED) pain assessment documentation in trauma patients is critical to ED pain care. This retrospective, cross-sectional study used trauma registry data to evaluate U.S. military combat zone trauma patients injured between 2010 and 2013 requiring ≥ 24-hr inpatient care. Study aims were to identify the frequency of combat zone ED pain assessment documentation and describe pain severity. Secondary aims were to construct statistical models to explain variation in pain assessment documentation and pain severity.Pain scores were documented in 60.5% (n = 3,339) of the 5,518 records evaluated. The proportion of records with ED pain scores increased yearly. Pain assessment documentation was associated with documentation of ED vital signs, comprehensive facility, more recent year, prehospital (PH) heart rate of 60-100 beats/min, ED Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 vs. 14, blunt trauma, and lower injury severity score (ISS).Pain severity scores ranged from 0 to 10; mean = 5.5 (SD = 3.1); median = 6. Higher ED pain scores were associated with Army service compared with Marine Corps, no documented PH vital signs, higher PH pain score, ED respiratory rate < 12 or >16, moderate or severe ISS compared with minor ISS, treatment in a less-equipped facility, and injury in 2011 or 2012 vs. 2010. The pain severity model explained 20.4% of variance in pain severity.Overall, frequency of pain assessment documentation in combat-zone EDs improved yearly, but remained suboptimal. Pain severity was poorly predicted by demographic, clinical, and health system variables available from the trauma registry, emphasizing the importance of individual assessment.

Research Participation for Bereaved Family Members: Experience and Insights From a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Research has highlighted potential negative health outcomes for bereaved family members after loss of a loved one in the ICU and has helped identify areas for intervention. The findings exist because these family members agreed to participate in research studies; but little is known about their experience of research participation. OBJECTIVE: To understand why family members participate in bereavement research and the benefits of participating in such research. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews with bereaved family members as well as letters written by bereaved family members. SETTING: Forty-one ICUs in France. SUBJECTS: Family members who lost a loved one in the ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thematic analysis was used and was based on 54 narratives, 52 letters, and written annotations on 150 questionnaires. Regarding reasons to participate and benefits of research participation, 6 themes emerged: 1) to say thank you to the ICU team, 2) to help other bereaved family members, 3) to express myself from a distance, 4) to not feel abandoned, 5) to share difficult emotions and to help make meaning of the death, and 6) to receive support and care. CONCLUSION: Bereavement research is possible after loss of a loved one in the ICU and may even be beneficial for family members. Exploring families' experiences of research participation helps define specific family needs in this setting. After the loss of a loved one in the ICU, bereaved families need opportunities to voice their feelings about their experience in the ICU and to give meaning to the end-of-life process; families also need to feel that they are still cared for. Support for the family may need to be developed after loss of a loved one in the ICU in the form of condolence letters, phone calls, or postintensive care meetings.

Integrating Palliative Care Into the Care of Neurocritically Ill Patients: A Report From the Improving Palliative Care in the ICU Project Advisory Board and the Center to Advance Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe unique features of neurocritical illness that are relevant to provision of high-quality palliative care; to discuss key prognostic aids and their limitations for neurocritical illnesses; to review challenges and strategies for establishing realistic goals of care for patients in the neuro-ICU; and to describe elements of best practice concerning symptom management, limitation of life support, and organ donation for the neurocritically ill. DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted from inception through January 2015 for all English-language articles using the term "palliative care," "supportive care," "end-of-life care," "withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy," "limitation of life support," "prognosis," or "goals of care" together with "neurocritical care," "neurointensive care," "neurological," "stroke," "subarachnoid hemorrhage," "intracerebral hemorrhage," or "brain injury." DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We reviewed the existing literature on delivery of palliative care in the neurointensive care unit setting, focusing on challenges and strategies for establishing realistic and appropriate goals of care, symptom management, organ donation, and other considerations related to use and limitation of life-sustaining therapies for neurocritically ill patients. Based on review of these articles and the experiences of our interdisciplinary/interprofessional expert advisory board, this report was prepared to guide critical care staff, palliative care specialists, and others who practice in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Most neurocritically ill patients and their families face the sudden onset of devastating cognitive and functional changes that challenge clinicians to provide patient-centered palliative care within a complex and often uncertain prognostic environment. Application of palliative care principles concerning symptom relief, goal setting, and family emotional support will provide clinicians a framework to address decision making at a time of crisis that enhances patient/family autonomy and clinician professionalism.

Determinants of procedural pain intensity in the intensive care unit. The Europain® study.

RATIONALE: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures every day. The prevalence, intensity, and risk factors of pain related to these procedures are not well known. OBJECTIVES: To assess self-reported procedural pain intensity versus baseline pain, examine pain intensity differences across procedures, and identify risk factors for procedural pain intensity. METHODS: Prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational study of pain intensity associated with 12 procedures. Data were obtained from 3,851 patients who underwent 4,812 procedures in 192 ICUs in 28 countries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain intensity on a 0-10 numeric rating scale increased significantly from baseline pain during all procedures (P < 0.001). Chest tube removal, wound drain removal, and arterial line insertion were the three most painful procedures, with median pain scores of 5 (3-7), 4.5 (2-7), and 4 (2-6), respectively. By multivariate analysis, risk factors independently associated with greater procedural pain intensity were the specific procedure; opioid administration specifically for the procedure; preprocedural pain intensity; preprocedural pain distress; intensity of the worst pain on the same day, before the procedure; and procedure not performed by a nurse. A significant ICU effect was observed, with no visible effect of country because of its absorption by the ICU effect. Some of the risk factors became nonsignificant when each procedure was examined separately. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of risk factors for greater procedural pain intensity identified in this study may help clinicians select interventions that are needed to minimize procedural pain. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01070082).

Integrating palliative care into the PICU: a report from the Improving Palliative Care in the ICU Advisory Board.

OBJECTIVE: This review highlights benefits that patients, families and clinicians can expect to realize when palliative care is intentionally incorporated into the PICU. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE database from inception to January 2014 for English-language articles using the terms "palliative care" or "end of life care" or "supportive care" and "pediatric intensive care." We also hand-searched reference lists and author files and relevant tools on the Center to Advance Palliative Care website. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors (physicians with experience in pediatric intensive care and palliative care) made final selections. DATA EXTRACTION: We critically reviewed the existing data and tools to identify strategies for incorporating palliative care into the PICU. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Improving Palliative Care in the ICU Advisory Board used data and experience to address key questions relating to: pain and symptom management, enhancing quality of life, communication and decision-making, length of stay, sites of care, and grief and bereavement. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care should begin at the time of a potentially life-limiting diagnosis and continue throughout the disease trajectory, regardless of the expected outcome. Although the PICU is often used for short term postoperative stabilization, PICU clinicians also care for many chronically ill children with complex underlying conditions and others receiving intensive care for prolonged periods. Integrating palliative care delivery into the PICU is rapidly becoming the standard for high quality care of critically ill children. Interdisciplinary ICU staff can take advantage of the growing resources for continuing education in pediatric palliative care principles and interventions.

Exploring the nature of interprofessional collaboration and family member involvement in an intensive care context.

Little is known about the nature of interprofessional collaboration on intensive care units (ICUs), despite its recognition as a key component of patient safety and quality improvement initiatives. This comparative ethnographic study addresses this gap in knowledge and explores the different factors that influence collaborative work in the ICU. It aims to develop an empirically grounded team diagnostic tool, and associated interventions to strengthen team-based care and patient family involvement. This iterative study is comprised of three phases: a scoping review, a multi-site ethnographic study in eight ICUs over 2 years; and the development of a diagnostic tool and associated interprofessional intervention-development. This study's multi-site design and the richness and breadth of its data maximize its potential to improve clinical outcomes through an enhanced understanding of interprofessional dynamics and how patient family members in ICU settings are best included in care processes. Our research dissemination strategy, as well as the diagnostic tool and associated educational interventions developed from this study will help transfer the study's findings to other settings.