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.

Inappropriate care in European ICUs: confronting views from nurses and junior and senior physicians.

BACKGROUND: ICU care providers often feel that the care given to a patient may be inconsistent with their professional knowledge or beliefs. This study aimed to assess differences in, and reasons for, perceived inappropriate care (PIC) across ICU care providers with varying levels of decision-making power. METHODS: We present subsequent analysis from the Appropricus Study, a cross-sectional study conducted on May 11, 2010, which included 1,218 nurses and 180 junior and 227 senior physicians in 82 European adult ICUs. The study was designed to evaluate PIC. The current study focuses on differences across health-care providers regarding the reasons for PIC in real patient situations. RESULTS: By multivariate analysis, nurses were found to have higher PIC rates compared with senior and junior physicians. However, nurses and senior physicians were more distressed by perceived disproportionate care than were junior physicians (33%, 25%, and 9%, respectively; P = .026). A perceived mismatch between level of care and prognosis (mostly excessive care) was the most common cause of PIC. The main reasons for PIC were prognostic uncertainty among physicians, poor team and family communication, the fact that no one was taking the initiative to challenge the inappropriateness of care, and financial incentives to provide excessive care among nurses. Senior physicians, compared with nurses and junior physicians, more frequently reported pressure from the referring physician as a reason. Family-related factors were reported by similar proportions of participants in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: ICU care providers agree that excessive care is a true issue in the ICU. However, they differ in the reasons for the PIC, reflecting the roles each caregiver has in the ICU. Nurses charge physicians with a lack of initiative and poor communication, whereas physicians more often ascribe prognostic uncertainty. Teaching ICU physicians to deal with prognostic uncertainty in more adequate ways and to promote ethical discussions in their teams may be pivotal to improving moral distress and the quality of patient care.

Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the survival gains achieved in critically ill cancer patients in recent years exist in the subset with neutropenia and severe sepsis or septic shock. DESIGN: Retrospective 11-yr study (1998-2008). SETTING: Medical intensive care unit in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-eight intensive care unit patients with cancer, neutropenia, and severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: The main underlying diseases were acute leukemia (35.7%), lymphoma (31.7%), and solid tumors (16.5%). Two hundred thirty-seven (55.5%) patients had microbiologically documented infections, 141 (32.9%) clinically documented infections, and 50 (11.9%) fever of unknown origin. Acute noninfectious conditions were diagnosed in 175 of 428 (41%) patients, including 26 of 50 (52%) patients with fever of unknown origin, 66 of 141 (47%) patients with clinically documented infections, and 83 of 237 (35%) patients with microbiologically documented infections. Early indwelling catheter removal was performed routinely in the 107 (25%) patients without clinical evidence of a septic focus at intensive care unit admission. Early beta-lactam plus aminoglycoside therapy was used in 391 (91.3%) patients. Hospital mortality was 49.8%. Hospital mortality decreased from 58.7% (108 of 184) in 1998-2003 to 43% in 2004-2008 (105 of 244, p = .006). Multivariate analysis identified nine independent predictors of hospital mortality, of which six were associated with higher mortality (older age; need for vasopressors; neurologic, respiratory, or hepatic dysfunction; and acute noninfectious condition) and three with lower mortality (intensive care unit admission after 2003, combination antibiotic therapy including an aminoglycoside, and early indwelling catheter removal). CONCLUSION: In neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, survival improved over time. Aminoglycoside use and early catheter removal in patients with undocumented sepsis may improve survival. Acute noninfectious conditions are associated with increased mortality, underlining the need for thorough and repeated clinical assessments.

Perceptions of appropriateness of care among European and Israeli intensive care unit nurses and physicians.

CONTEXT: Clinicians in intensive care units (ICUs) who perceive the care they provide as inappropriate experience moral distress and are at risk for burnout. This situation may jeopardize patient quality of care and increase staff turnover. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of perceived inappropriateness of care among ICU clinicians and to identify patient-related situations, personal characteristics, and work-related characteristics associated with perceived inappropriateness of care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional evaluation on May 11, 2010, of 82 adult ICUs in 9 European countries and Israel. Participants were 1953 ICU nurses and physicians providing bedside care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Perceived inappropriateness of care, defined as a specific patient-care situation in which the clinician acts in a manner contrary to his or her personal and professional beliefs, as assessed using a questionnaire designed for the study. RESULTS: Of 1651 respondents (median response rate, 93% overall; interquartile range, 82%-100% [medians 93% among nurses and 100% among physicians]), perceived inappropriateness of care in at least 1 patient was reported by 439 clinicians overall (27%; 95% CI, 24%-29%), 300 of 1218 were nurses (25%), 132 of 407 were physicians (32%), and 26 had missing answers describing job title. Of these 439 individuals, 397 reported 445 situations associated with perceived inappropriateness of care. The most common reports were perceived disproportionate care (290 situations [65%; 95% CI, 58%-73%], of which "too much care" was reported in 89% of situations, followed by "other patients would benefit more" (168 situations [38%; 95% CI, 32%-43%]). Independently associated with perceived inappropriateness of care rates both among nurses and physicians were symptom control decisions directed by physicians only (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.17-2.56; P = .006); involvement of nurses in end-of-life decision making (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96; P = .02); good collaboration between nurses and physicians (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .009); and freedom to decide how to perform work-related tasks (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89; P = .002); while a high perceived workload was significantly associated among nurses only (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.07-2.06; P = .02). Perceived inappropriateness of care was independently associated with higher intent to leave a job (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.04-2.63; P = .03). In the subset of 69 ICUs for which patient data could be linked, clinicians reported received inappropriateness of care in 207 patients, representing 23% (95% CI, 20%-27%) of 883 ICU beds. CONCLUSION: Among a group of European and Israeli ICU clinicians, perceptions of inappropriate care were frequently reported and were inversely associated with factors indicating good teamwork.

The strategy of antibiotic use in critically ill neutropenic patients.

Suspicion of sepsis in neutropenic patients requires immediate antimicrobial treatment. The initial regimen in critically ill patients should cover both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa. However, the risk of selecting multidrug-resistant pathogens should be considered when using broad-spectrum antibiotics for a prolonged period of time. The choice of the first-line empirical drugs should take into account the underlying malignancy, local bacterial ecology, clinical presentation and severity of acute illness. This review provides an up-to-date guide that will assist physicians in choosing the best strategy regarding the use of antibiotics in neutropenic patients, with a special focus on critically ill patients, based on the above-mentioned considerations and on the most recent international guidelines and literature.