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.

Care of the Critically Ill Burn Patient. An Overview from the Perspective of Optimizing Palliative Care.

Burn specialists have long recognized the need for and have role modeled a comprehensive approach incorporating relief of distress as part of care during critical illness. More recently, palliative care specialists have become part of the healthcare team in many U.S. hospitals, especially larger academic institutions that are more likely to have designated burn centers. No current literature describes the intersection of palliative care and burn care or integration of primary and specialist palliative care in this unique context. This Perspective gives an overview of burn care; focuses on pain and other symptoms in burn intensive care unit settings; addresses special needs of critically ill burned patients, their families, and clinicians for high-quality palliative care; and highlights potential benefits of integrating primary and specialist palliative care in burn critical care. MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched, and an e-mail survey was used to obtain information from U.S. Burn Fellowship Program directors about palliative medicine training. The Improving Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit Project Advisory Board synthesized published evidence with their own research and clinical experience in preparing this article. Mortality and severe morbidity for critically ill burned patients remains high. American Burn Association guidelines lay the foundation for a robust system of palliative care delivery, embedding palliative care principles and processes in intensive care by burn providers. Understanding basic burn care, challenges for symptom management and communication, and the culture of the particular burn unit, can optimize quality and integration of primary and specialist palliative care in this distinctive setting.

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.

Integration of palliative care in the context of rapid response: a report from the Improving Palliative Care in the ICU advisory board.

Rapid response teams (RRTs) can effectively foster discussions about appropriate goals of care and address other emergent palliative care needs of patients and families facing life-threatening illness on hospital wards. In this article, The Improving Palliative Care in the ICU (IPAL-ICU) Project brings together interdisciplinary expertise and existing data to address the following: special challenges for providing palliative care in the rapid response setting, knowledge and skills needed by RRTs for delivery of high-quality palliative care, and strategies for improving the integration of palliative care with rapid response critical care. We discuss key components of communication with patients, families, and primary clinicians to develop a goal-directed treatment approach during a rapid response event. We also highlight the need for RRT expertise to initiate symptom relief. Strategies including specific clinician training and system initiatives are then recommended for RRT care improvement. We conclude by suggesting that as evaluation of their impact on other outcomes continues, performance by RRTs in meeting palliative care needs of patients and families should also be measured and improved.

Physician reimbursement for critical care services integrating palliative care for patients who are critically ill.

Patients with advanced illness often spend time in an ICU, while nearly one-third of patients with advanced cancer who receive Medicare die in hospitals, often with failed ICU care. For most, death occurs following the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatments. The integration of palliative care is essential for high-quality critical care. Although palliative care specialists are becoming increasingly available, intensivists and other physicians are also expected to provide basic palliative care, including symptom treatment and communication about goals of care. Patients who are critically ill are often unable to make decisions about their care. In these situations, physicians must meet with family members or other surrogates to determine appropriate medical treatments. These meetings require clinical expertise to ensure that patient values are explored for medical decision making about therapeutic options, including palliative care. Meetings with families take time. Issues related to the disease process, prognosis, and treatment plan are complex, and decisions about the use or limitation of intensive care therapies have life-or-death implications. Inadequate reimbursement for physician services may be a barrier to the optimal delivery of high-quality palliative care, including effective communication. Appropriate documentation of time spent integrating palliative and critical care for patients who are critically ill can be consistent with the Current Procedural Terminology codes (99291 and 99292) for critical care services. The purpose of this article is to help intensivists and other providers understand the circumstances in which integration of palliative and critical care meets the definition of critical care services for billing purposes.

Integrating palliative care in the surgical and trauma intensive care unit: a report from the Improving Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit (IPAL-ICU) Project Advisory Board and the Center to Advance Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: Although successful models for palliative care delivery and quality improvement in the intensive care unit have been described, their applicability in surgical intensive care unit settings has not been fully addressed. We undertook to define specific challenges, strategies, and solutions for integration of palliative care in the surgical intensive care unit. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE database from inception to May 2011 for all English language articles using the term "surgical palliative care" or the terms "surgical critical care," "surgical ICU," "surgeon," "trauma" or "transplant," and "palliative care" or "end-of- life care" and hand-searched our personal files for additional articles. Based on review of these articles and the experiences of our interdisciplinary expert Advisory Board, we prepared this report. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We critically reviewed the existing literature on delivery of palliative care in the surgical intensive care unit setting focusing on challenges, strategies, models, and interventions to promote effective integration of palliative care for patients receiving surgical critical care and their families. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of patients with surgical disease and practices, attitudes, and interactions of different disciplines on the surgical critical care team present distinctive issues for intensive care unit palliative care integration and improvement. Physicians, nurses, and other team members in surgery, critical care and palliative care (if available) should be engaged collaboratively to identify challenges and develop strategies. "Consultative," "integrative," and combined models can be used to improve intensive care unit palliative care, although optimal use of trigger criteria for palliative care consultation has not yet been demonstrated. Important components of an improvement effort include attention to efficient work systems and practical tools and to attitudinal factors and "culture" in the unit and institution. Approaches that emphasize delivery of palliative care together with surgical critical care hold promise to better integrate palliative care into the surgical intensive care unit.

Meeting standards of high-quality intensive care unit palliative care: clinical performance and predictors.

OBJECTIVES: High-quality care for intensive care unit patients and families includes palliative care. To promote performance improvement, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Quality Measures Clearinghouse identified nine evidence-based processes of intensive care unit palliative care (Care and Communication Bundle) that are measured through review of medical record documentation. We conducted this study to examine how frequently the Care and Communication Bundle processes were performed in diverse intensive care units and to understand patient factors that are associated with such performance. DESIGN: Prospective, multisite, observational study of performance of key intensive care unit palliative care processes. SETTINGS: A surgical intensive care unit and a medical intensive care unit in two different large academic health centers and a medical-surgical intensive care unit in a medium-sized community hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients with length of intensive care unit stay ≥5 days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Between November 2007 and December 2009, we measured performance by specified day after intensive care unit admission on nine care process measures: Identify medical decision-maker, advance directive and resuscitation preference, distribute family information leaflet, assess and manage pain, offer social work and spiritual support, and conduct interdisciplinary family meeting. Multivariable regression analysis was used to determine predictors of performance of five care processes. We enrolled 518 (94.9%) patients and 336 (83.6%) family members. Performances on pain assessment and management measures were high. In contrast, interdisciplinary family meetings were documented for <20% of patients by intensive care unit day 5. Performance on other measures ranged from 8% to 43%, with substantial variation across and within sites. Chronic comorbidity burden and site were the most consistent predictors of care process performance. CONCLUSIONS: Across three intensive care units in this study, performance of key palliative care processes (other than pain assessment and management) was inconsistent and infrequent. Available resources and strategies should be utilized for performance improvement in this area of high importance to patients, families, and providers.

Efficacy of small doses of ketamine with morphine to decrease procedural pain responses during open wound care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in pain intensity, pain quality, physiological measures, and adverse effects when patients received morphine with saline (MS) compared with morphine and a small dose of ketamine (MK) before an open wound care procedure (WCP). METHODS: A randomized, cross-over design was used to determine whether the addition of a small dose of ketamine would potentiate morphine's analgesic effects and decrease WCP pain intensity. Patients were randomized to receive either 0.1 mg/kg of morphine (8 mg maximum) plus saline intravenously (IV) or 0.05 mg/kg of morphine (4 mg maximum) plus ketamine 0.25 mg/kg IV before the WCP. Patients were crossed-over to receive the alternate treatment during the next WCP. RESULTS: Eleven male patients participated in the study. Mean rank of pain intensity during WCP-MK was significantly less than during WCP-MS (P=0.005). Mean±standard error of mean pain intensity during the WCP-MK was 3.09±0.99, whereas it was 6.82±0.92 during the WCP-MS. However, 91% of the patients had adverse effects (eg, strange sensations, hallucinations, blurred vision) with MK versus 0% with MS. Diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher during the WCP-MK. DISCUSSION: Ketamine with morphine significantly reduced procedural wound pain intensity during WCP. Adverse effects and higher diastolic BP occurred with MK. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal analgesic dose of ketamine or if the addition of a benzodiazepine would mitigate the psychotomimetic effects of ketamine.

The epidemiology of pain during the last 2 years of life.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of pain during the last years of life has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and correlates of pain during the last 2 years of life. DESIGN: Observational study. Data from participants who died while enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study were analyzed. The survey interview closest to death was used. Each participant or proxy was interviewed once in the last 24 months of life and was classified into 1 of 24 cohorts on the basis of the number of months between the interview and death. The relationship between time before death and pain was modeled and was adjusted for age, sex, race or ethnicity, education level, net worth, income, terminal diagnosis category, presence of arthritis, and proxy status. SETTING: The Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey of community-living older adults (1994 to 2006). PARTICIPANTS: Older adult decedents. MEASUREMENTS: Clinically significant pain, as indicated by a report that the participant was "often troubled" by pain of at least moderate severity. RESULTS: The sample included 4703 decedents. Mean age (SD) of participants was 75.7 years (SD, 10.8); 83.1% were white, 10.7% were black, 4.7% were Hispanic; and 52.3% were men. The adjusted prevalence of pain 24 months before death was 26% (95% CI, 23% to 30%). The prevalence remained flat until 4 months before death (28% [CI, 25% to 32%]), then it increased, reaching 46% (CI, 38% to 55%) in the last month of life. The prevalence of pain in the last month of life was 60% among patients with arthritis versus 26% among patients without arthritis (P < 0.001) and did not differ by terminal diagnosis category (cancer [45%], heart disease [48%], frailty [50%], sudden death [42%], or other causes [47%]; P = 0.195). LIMITATION: Data are cross-sectional; 19% of responses were from proxies; and information about cause, location, and treatment of pain was not available. CONCLUSION: Although the prevalence of pain increases in the last 4 months of life, pain is present in more than one quarter of elderly persons during the last 2 years of life. Arthritis is strongly associated with pain at the end of life. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging, National Center for Research Resources, National Institute on Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and National Palliative Care Research Center.

Models for structuring a clinical initiative to enhance palliative care in the intensive care unit: a report from the IPAL-ICU Project (Improving Palliative Care in the ICU).

OBJECTIVE: To describe models used in successful clinical initiatives to improve the quality of palliative care in critical care settings. DATA SOURCES: We searched the MEDLINE database from inception to April 2010 for all English language articles using the terms "intensive care," "critical care," or "ICU" and "palliative care"; we also hand-searched reference lists and author files. Based on review and synthesis of these data and the experiences of our interdisciplinary expert Advisory Board, we prepared this consensus report. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We critically reviewed the existing data with a focus on models that have been used to structure clinical initiatives to enhance palliative care for critically ill patients in intensive care units and their families. CONCLUSIONS: There are two main models for intensive care unit-palliative care integration: 1) the "consultative model," which focuses on increasing the involvement and effectiveness of palliative care consultants in the care of intensive care unit patients and their families, particularly those patients identified as at highest risk for poor outcomes; and 2) the "integrative model," which seeks to embed palliative care principles and interventions into daily practice by the intensive care unit team for all patients and families facing critical illness. These models are not mutually exclusive but rather represent the ends of a spectrum of approaches. Choosing an overall approach from among these models should be one of the earliest steps in planning an intensive care unit-palliative care initiative. This process entails a careful and realistic assessment of available resources, attitudes of key stakeholders, structural aspects of intensive care unit care, and patterns of local practice in the intensive care unit and hospital. A well-structured intensive care unit-palliative care initiative can provide important benefits for patients, families, and providers.

In their own words: patients and families define high-quality palliative care in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Although the majority of hospital deaths occur in the intensive care unit and virtually all critically ill patients and their families have palliative needs, we know little about how patients and families, the most important "stakeholders," define high-quality intensive care unit palliative care. We conducted this study to obtain their views on important domains of this care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups facilitated by a single physician. SETTING: A 20-bed general intensive care unit in a 382-bed community hospital in Oklahoma; 24-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit in a 377-bed tertiary, university hospital in urban California; and eight-bed medical intensive care unit in a 311-bed Veterans' Affairs hospital in a northeastern city. PATIENTS: Randomly-selected patients with intensive care unit length of stay >=5 days in 2007 to 2008 who survived the intensive care unit, families of survivors, and families of patients who died in the intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Focus group facilitator used open-ended questions and scripted probes from a written guide. Three investigators independently coded meeting transcripts, achieving consensus on themes. From 48 subjects (15 patients, 33 family members) in nine focus groups across three sites, a shared definition of high-quality intensive care unit palliative care emerged: timely, clear, and compassionate communication by clinicians; clinical decision-making focused on patients' preferences, goals, and values; patient care maintaining comfort, dignity, and personhood; and family care with open access and proximity to patients, interdisciplinary support in the intensive care unit, and bereavement care for families of patients who died. Participants also endorsed specific processes to operationalize the care they considered important. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve intensive care unit palliative care quality should focus on domains and processes that are most valued by critically ill patients and their families, among whom we found broad agreement in a diverse sample. Measures of quality and effective interventions exist to improve care in domains that are important to intensive care unit patients and families.

Sensitivity and specificity of the critical-care pain observation tool for the detection of pain in intubated adults after cardiac surgery.

A repeated measure design was used to evaluate additional psychometric qualities (sensitivity and specificity) of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), a previously validated tool, in intubated intensive care unit (ICU) adults after cardiac surgery recruited in a university cardiology health center in Canada. Patients were evaluated while conscious and intubated (n=99/105), and extubated (n=105). For each of these two testing periods, patients were evaluated using the CPOT at rest (pre-exposure), during a nociceptive procedure-turning (exposure), and 20 minutes after the procedure (postexposure). The patients' self-reports of pain were obtained while intubated and extubated. During the nociceptive exposure, the CPOT had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 78%, a positive likelihood ratio (LR(+)) of 3.87 (1.63-9.23), and a negative LR (LR(-)) of 0.18 (0.09-0.33) and was effective for the screening of pain. It also showed good specificity (83% and 97%) but lower sensitivity (47% and 63%) during nonexposure conditions. The CPOT cutoff score was >2 during the nociceptive exposure. After extubation, patients' self-reports of pain intensity were associated with the positive CPOT cutoff score previously determined. The CPOT adequately classified most of the patients with severe pain. The CPOT seems to be a useful tool to detect pain in intubated postoperative ICU adults, especially during a nociceptive procedure. Sensitivity and specificity of the CPOT need to be further explored during other nociceptive procedures and with different critically ill populations.

TrkA and PKC-epsilon in thermal burn-induced mechanical hyperalgesia in the rat.

UNLABELLED: Although mechanical hyperalgesia associated with medical procedures is the major source of severe pain in burn-injured patients, little is known about its underlying mechanism. One reason for this has been the lack of a model for mechanical hyperalgesia at the site of injury. We have modified an established partial-thickness burn model in the rat to produce long-lasting primary mechanical hyperalgesia, which is present from the first measurement at 0.5 h, reaches a maximum at 3 days, and is still significant after 7 days. Because nerve growth factor (NGF), which is elevated in burn-injured tissue, produces mechanical hyperalgesia and activates protein kinase C (PKC)-epsilon, a key mediator in inflammatory and neuropathic pain, we used this model to evaluate the role of the NGF receptor, tyrosine-receptor kinase A (TrkA), and PKC-epsilon in burn-induced primary mechanical hyperalgesia. Intrathecal administration of antisense oligodeoxynucleotides to TrkA and PKC-epsilon, starting 3 days before inducing a burn injury, caused dose-related decrease of burn-induced primary mechanical hyperalgesia. In addition, intradermal injection of a PKC-epsilon-selective inhibitor eliminated hyperalgesia. Our model provides a method to elucidate the underlying mechanism of burn-injury pain as well as to screen for targets for novel analgesic treatments of this important clinical condition. PERSPECTIVE: This manuscript presents the first model of thermal injury-induced mechanical hyperalgesia which mimics prolonged duration of clinical burn injury pain. We also perform proof of concept experiments demonstrating that our model provides a method to elucidate the mechanism of this important clinical condition.

End-of-life care for the critically ill: A national intensive care unit survey.

OBJECTIVE: One in five Americans dies following treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU), and evidence indicates the need to improve end-of-life care for ICU patients. We conducted this study to elicit the views and experiences of ICU directors regarding barriers to optimal end-of-life care and to identify the type, availability, and perceived benefit of specific strategies that may improve this care. DESIGN: Self-administered mail survey. SETTING: Six hundred intensive care units. PARTICIPANTS: A random, nationally representative sample of nursing and physician directors of 600 adult ICUs in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Mail survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We asked participants about barriers to end-of-life care (1 = huge to 5 = not at all a barrier), perceived benefit of strategies to improve end-of-life care, and availability of these strategies. From 468 ICUs (78.0% of sample), 590 ICU directors participated (406 nurses [65.1% response] and 184 physicians [31.7% response]). Respondents had a mean of 16.6 yrs (sd 7.6 yrs) of ICU experience. Important barriers to better end-of-life care included patient/family factors, including unrealistic patient/family expectations 2.5 (1.0), inability of patients to participate in discussions 2.7 (0.9), and lack of advance directives 2.9 (1.0); clinician factors, which included insufficient physician training in communication 2.9 (1.1) and competing demands on physicians' time 3.0 (1.1); and institution/ICU factors, such as suboptimal space for family meetings 3.5 (1.2) and lack of a palliative care service 3.4 (1.2). More than 80% of respondents rated 14 of 14 strategies as likely to improve end-of-life care, including trainee role modeling by experienced clinicians, clinician training in communication and symptom management, regular meetings of senior clinicians with families, bereavement programs, and end-of-life care quality monitoring. However, few of these strategies were widely available. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care unit directors perceive important barriers to optimal end-of-life care but also universally endorse many practical strategies for quality improvement.

Validation of the critical-care pain observation tool in adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been conducted to validate pain assessment tools in critical care, especially for patients who cannot communicate verbally. OBJECTIVE: To validate the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. METHODS: A total of 105 cardiac surgery patients in the intensive care unit, recruited in a cardiology health center in Quebec, Canada, participated in the study. Following surgery, 33 of the 105 were evaluated while unconscious and intubated and 99 while conscious and intubated; all 105 were evaluated after extubation. For each of the 3 testing periods, patients were evaluated by using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool at rest, during a nociceptive procedure (positioning), and 20 minutes after the procedure, for a total of 9 assessments. Each patient's self-report of pain was obtained while the patient was conscious and intubated and after extubation. RESULTS: The reliability and validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool were acceptable. Interrater reliability was supported by moderate to high weighted kappa coefficients. For criterion validity, significant associations were found between the patients' self-reports of pain and the scores on the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. Discriminant validity was supported by higher scores during positioning (a nociceptive procedure) versus at rest. CONCLUSIONS: The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool showed that no matter their level of consciousness, critically ill adult patients react to a noxious stimulus by expressing different behaviors that may be associated with pain. Therefore, the tool could be used to assess the effect of various measures for the management of pain.