Determinants of pain assessment documentation in intensive care units.

PURPOSE: The underassessment of pain is a major barrier to effective pain management, and the lack of pain assessment documentation has been associated with negative patient outcomes. This study aimed to 1) describe the contextual factors related to pain assessment and management in five Québec intensive care units (ICUs); 2) describe their pain assessment documentation practices; and 3) identify sociodemographic and clinical determinants related to pain assessment documentation. METHODS: A descriptive-correlational retrospective design was used. Sociodemographic data (i.e., age, sex), clinical data (i.e., diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, level of consciousness, severity of illness, opioids, sedatives), and pain assessments were extracted from 345 medical charts of ICU admissions from five teaching hospitals between 2017 and 2019. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were performed. RESULTS: All sites reported using the 0-10 numeric rating scale, but the implementation of a behavioural pain scale was variable across sites. A median of three documented pain assessments were performed per 24 hr, which is below the minimal recommendation of eight to 12 pain assessments per 24 hr. Overall, pain assessment was present in 70% of charts, but only 20% of opioid doses were followed by documented pain reassessment within one hour post-administration. Higher level of consciousness (ß = 0.37), using only breakthrough doses (ß = 0.24), and lower opioid doses (ß = -0.21) were significant determinants of pain assessment documentation (adjusted R2 = 0.25). CONCLUSION: Pain assessment documentation is suboptimal in ICUs, especially for patients unable to self-report or those receiving higher opioid doses. Study findings highlight the need to implement tools to optimize pain assessment and documentation.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La sous-évaluation de la douleur constitue un obstacle majeur à une gestion efficace de la douleur, et le manque de documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur a été associé à des conséquences défavorables pour les patients. Cette étude visait à : 1) décrire les facteurs contextuels liés à l'évaluation et à la gestion de la douleur dans cinq unités de soins intensifs (USI) du Québec; 2) décrire leurs pratiques de documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur; et 3) identifier les déterminants sociodémographiques et cliniques liés à la documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur. MéTHODE: Un devis de recherche rétrospectif descriptif-corrélationnel a été utilisé. Les données sociodémographiques (c.-à-d. l'âge, le sexe), les données cliniques (c.-à-d. le diagnostic, la ventilation mécanique, le niveau de conscience, la gravité de la maladie, les opioïdes, les sédatifs) et les évaluations de la douleur ont été extraites de 345 dossiers médicaux avec admissions à l'USI de cinq hôpitaux universitaires entre 2017 et 2019. Des statistiques descriptives et une régression linéaire multiple ont été effectuées. RéSULTATS: Tous les sites ont déclaré utiliser l'échelle d'évaluation numérique de 0 à 10, mais l'implantation d'une échelle de douleur comportementale variait d'un site à un autre. Une médiane de trois évaluations de douleur étaient documentées par 24 heures, ce qui est inférieur à la recommandation minimale de huit à 12 évaluations de douleur par 24 heures. Dans l'ensemble, l'évaluation de la douleur était présente dans 70 % des dossiers, mais seulement 20 % des doses d'opioïdes étaient suivies d'une réévaluation documentée de la douleur dans l'heure suivant leur'administration. Un niveau de conscience plus élevé (ß = 0,37), l'utilisation exclusive d'entredoses d'opioïdes pour les percées de douleur (ß = 0,24) et des doses d'opioïdes plus faibles (ß = -0,21) ont constitué les déterminants significatifs dans la documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur (R2 ajusté = 0,25). CONCLUSION: La documentation de l'évaluation de la douleur est sous-optimale dans les USI, en particulier pour les patients incapables de s'exprimer ou ceux qui reçoivent des doses plus élevées d'opioïdes. Les résultats de cette étude soulignent l'importance d'implanter des outils pour optimiser l'évaluation et la documentation de la douleur.

Validation of the Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 in Adult Intensive Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 (WAT-1) has been validated for assessing iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in critically ill children receiving mechanical ventilation, but little is known about this syndrome in critically ill adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the WAT-1 in critically ill adults. METHODS: A prospective, observational, open-cohort pilot study of critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation and regular administration of opioids for at least 72 hours. Patients were assessed for withdrawal twice daily on weekdays and once daily on weekends using the WAT-1 after an opioid weaning episode. The presence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome was evaluated once daily using modified Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-5) criteria. All evaluations were blinded and performed independently. The criterion validity of the WAT-1 and the interrater reliability for WAT-1 and DSM-5 evaluations were determined. RESULTS: During 8 months, 52 adults (median age, 51.5 years) were enrolled. Eight patients (15%) had at least 1 positive assessment during their intensive care unit stay using the DSM-5, compared with 19 patients (37%) using the WAT-1. The overall sensitivity of the WAT-1 was 50%, and its specificity was 65.9%. Agreement between WAT-1 and DSM-5 assessments was poor (κ = 0.102). The interrater reliability for the WAT-1 was 89.1% and for the DSM-5 was 90.1%. CONCLUSION: Despite showing reliability, the WAT-1 is not a valid tool for assessing the presence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in adults.

Antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest limited and cautious use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium where nonpharmacological interventions have failed and symptoms remain distressing or dangerous, or both. It is unclear how well these recommendations are supported by current evidence. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy of antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on the duration of delirium in hospitalised adults. Our secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of: 1) antipsychotics versus nonantipsychotics or placebo on delirium severity and resolution, mortality, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects; and 2) atypical vs. typical antipsychotics for reducing delirium duration, severity, and resolution, hospital mortality and length of stay, discharge disposition, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane EBM Reviews, CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) from their respective inception dates until July 2017. We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science ISI Proceedings, and other grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing 1) antipsychotics to nonantipsychotics or placebo and 2) typical to atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium in adult hospitalised (but not critically ill) patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We examined titles and abstracts of identified studies to determine eligibility. We extracted data independently in duplicate. Disagreements were settled by further discussion and consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as a measure of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, and between-group standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials that recruited 727 participants. Four of the nine trials included a comparison of an antipsychotic to a nonantipsychotic drug or placebo and seven included a comparison of a typical to an atypical antipsychotic. The study populations included hospitalised medical, surgical, and palliative patients.No trial reported on duration of delirium. Antipsychotic treatment did not reduce delirium severity compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (standard mean difference (SMD) -1.08, 95% CI -2.55 to 0.39; four studies; 494 participants; very low-quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02; seven studies; 542 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence antipsychotics resolved delirium symptoms compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.98; three studies; 247 participants; very low-quality evidence); nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.52; five studies; 349 participants; low-quality evidence). The pooled results indicated that antipsychotics did not alter mortality compared to nonantipsychotic regimens (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.27; three studies; 319 participants; low-quality evidence) nor was there a difference between typical and atypical antipsychotics (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.35; four studies; 342 participants; low-quality evidence).No trial reported on hospital length of stay, hospital discharge disposition, or health-related quality of life. Adverse event reporting was limited and measured with inconsistent methods; in those reporting events, the number of events were low. No trial reported on physical restraint use, long-term cognitive outcomes, cerebrovascular events, or QTc prolongation (i.e. increased time in the heart's electrical cycle). Only one trial reported on arrhythmias and seizures, with no difference between typical or atypical antipsychotics. We found antipsychotics did not have a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) compared to nonantipsychotic drugs (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.04 to 65.57; three studies; 247 participants; very-low quality evidence); pooled results showed no increased risk of EPS with typical antipsychotics compared to atypical antipsychotics (RR 12.16, 95% CI 0.55 to 269.52; two studies; 198 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were no reported data to determine whether antipsychotics altered the duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, or health-related quality of life as studies did not report on these outcomes. From the poor quality data available, we found antipsychotics did not reduce delirium severity, resolve symptoms, or alter mortality. Adverse effects were poorly or rarely reported in the trials. Extrapyramidal symptoms were not more frequent with antipsychotics compared to nonantipsychotic drug regimens, and no different for typical compared to atypical antipsychotics.

Iatrogenic Opioid Withdrawal in Critically Ill Patients: A Review of Assessment Tools and Management.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) provide an overview of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and risk factors of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients and (2) conduct a literature review of assessment and management of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (1946-June 2017), EMBASE (1974-June 2017), and CINAHL (1982-June 2017) with the terms opioid withdrawal, opioid, opiate, critical care, critically ill, assessment tool, scale, taper, weaning, and management. Reference list of identified literature was searched for additional references as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov . STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We restricted articles to those in English and dealing with humans. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 2 validated pediatric critically ill opioid withdrawal assessment tools: (1) Withdrawal Assessment Tool-Version 1 (WAT-1) and (2) Sophia Observation Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (SOS). Neither tool differentiated between opioid and benzodiazepine withdrawal. WAT-1 was evaluated in critically ill adults but not found to be valid. No other adult tool was identified. For management, we identified 5 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective studies, and 2 systematic reviews. Most studies were small and only 2 studies utilized a validated assessment tool. Enteral methadone, α-2 agonists, and protocolized weaning were studied. CONCLUSION: We identified 2 validated assessment tools for pediatric intensive care unit patients; no valid tool for adults. Management strategies tested in small trials included methadone, α-2 agonists, and protocolized sedation/weaning. We challenge researchers to create validated tools assessing specifically for opioid withdrawal in critically ill children and adults to direct management.