Health care professionals' experiences of pain management in the intensive care unit: a qualitative study.

Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the assessment and management of pain in the critical care setting, the prevalence of acute pain remains high. Inadequate pain management is associated with longer duration of mechanical ventilation, reduced capacity for rehabilitation and long-term psychological sequelae. This study aimed to describe the experiences of pain management from healthcare professionals working in intensive care units. Healthcare professionals were recruited from intensive care units in London, UK using a purposive sampling technique. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis technique. Thirty participants were recruited from eight diverse intensive care units. Five themes were identified. First, there was a lack of consensus in pain assessment in the ICU where nursing staff described more knowledge and confidence of validated pain measures than physicians, and concerns over validity and usability were raised. Second, there was a universal perception of resource availability impacting the quality of pain management including high clinical workload, staff turnover and availability of certain pain management techniques. Third, acknowledgement of the importance of pain management was highest in those with experience of interacting with critical care survivors. Fourth, participants described their own emotional reaction to managing those in pain which influenced their learning. Finally, there was a perception that, due to the complexity of the intensive care unit population, pain was de-prioritised and there were conflicting views as to whether standardised analgosedation algorithms were useful. This study provides evidence to suggest interdisciplinary training, collaboratively designed decision-making tools, prioritisation initiatives and research priorities are areas that could be targeted to improve pain management in critical care.

The Global Task Force for Chronic Pain in People with HIV (PWH): Developing a research agenda in an emerging field.

Chronic pain is a common comorbidity in people with HIV (PWH), with prevalence estimates of 25-85%. Research in this area is growing, but significant gaps remain. A Global Task Force of HIV experts was organized to brainstorm a scientific agenda and identify measurement domains critical to advancing research in this field. Experts were identified through literature searches and snowball sampling. Two online questionnaires were developed by Task Force members. Questionnaire 1 asked participants to identify knowledge gaps in the field of HIV and chronic pain and identify measurement domains in studies of chronic pain in PWH. Responses were ranked in order of importance in Questionnaire 2, which was followed by a group discussion. 29 experts completed Questionnaire 1, 25 completed Questionnaire 2, and 21 participated in the group. Many important clinical and research priorities emerged, including the need to examine etiologies of chronic pain in PWH. Pain-related measurement domains were discussed, with a primary focus on domains that could be assessed in a standardized manner across various cohorts that include PWH in different countries. We collaboratively identified clinical and research priorities, as well as gaps in standardization of measurement domains, that can be used to move the field forward.

UK anaesthetists' perspectives and experiences of severe perioperative anaphylaxis: NAP6 baseline survey.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on UK anaesthetists' perspectives and experiences of perioperative anaphylaxis. This baseline survey of the Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) aimed to identify relevant departmental preparedness and practices, and individual experiences, perceptions and drug-avoidance patterns. METHODS: All anaesthetists in 356 UK NHS hospitals were invited to complete an electronic survey. RESULTS: 11 104 anaesthetists (77% crude response rate) from 341 (96%) hospitals responded. Most had immediate access to guidelines for anaphylaxis treatment (87%) and established referral pathways for investigation (82%), but a minority reported access to designated treatment packs (37%) or an anaphylaxis lead (35%). Anaesthetists reported 1734 cases of suspected perioperative anaphylaxis in 2014-5 of which 81% were referred for specialist investigation and 14% reported to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). In their career, 76% of respondents had seen a case of perioperative anaphylaxis (1:7.25 years of practice) and 4% reported a death (1:311 years of practice), equivalent to 2.3% of events being fatal. Agents most frequently perceived to cause anaphylaxis were antibiotics, particularly penicillins, and neuromuscular blocking agents, notably rocuronium. Suxamethonium and penicillins were avoided by a higher proportion of respondents than events attributed to these drugs whereas the converse was true for atracurium and teicoplanin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest ever survey of anaesthetists' practices and experiences relating to perioperative anaphylaxis. It identifies gaps in preparedness and referral for further investigation and to the UK MHRA. It provides important data about drugs implicated in such events and anaesthetists' attitudes to anaphylaxis.

Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT): an observational study of physician-documented pain assessment in 45 intensive care units in the United Kingdom.

Pain is a common and distressing symptom experienced by intensive care patients. Assessing pain in this environment is challenging, and published guidelines have been inconsistently implemented. The Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT) study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of physician pain assessments with respect to published guidelines. This observational service evaluation considered all pain and analgesia-related entries in patients' records over a 24-h period, in 45 adult intensive care units (ICUs) in London and the South-East of England. Data were collected from 750 patients, reflecting the practice of 362 physicians. Nearly two-thirds of patients (n = 475, 64.5%, 95%CI 60.9-67.8%) received no physician-documented pain assessment during the 24-h study period. Just under one-third (n = 215, 28.6%, 95%CI 25.5-32.0%) received no nursing-documented pain assessment, and over one-fifth (n = 159, 21.2%, 95%CI 19.2-23.4)% received neither a doctor nor a nursing pain assessment. Two of the 45 ICUs used validated behavioural pain assessment tools. The likelihood of receiving a physician pain assessment was affected by the following factors: the number of nursing assessments performed; whether the patient was admitted as a surgical patient; the presence of tracheal tube or tracheostomy; and the length of stay in ICU. Physician-documented pain assessments in the majority of participating ICUs were infrequent and did not utilise recommended behavioural pain assessment tools. Further research to identify factors influencing physician pain assessment behaviour in ICU, such as human factors or cultural attitudes, is urgently needed.

Anaesthetic management of pregnant patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: case reports and review.

Heart disease is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Pregnant women with structural, conduction or degenerative cardiac disease who require rhythm control or who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death may carry a cardiac implantable electronic device or may occasionally require the insertion of one during their pregnancy. These women are now encountered more frequently in clinical practice, and it is essential that a multidisciplinary approach, beginning from the early antenatal phase, be adopted in their counselling and management. Contemporary cardiac rhythm control devices are a constantly evolving technology with increasingly sophisticated features; anaesthetists should therefore have an adequate understanding of the principles of their operation and the special considerations for their use, in order to enable their safe management in the peripartum period. Of particular importance is the potential adverse effect of electromagnetic interference, which may cause device malfunction or damage, and the precautions required to reduce this risk. The ultimate goal in the management of this patient subgroup is to minimise the disruption to cardiovascular physiology that may occur near the time of labour and delivery and to control the factors that impact on device integrity and function. We present the ante- and peripartum management of two pregnant women with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, followed by a review and update of the anaesthetic management of parturients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.