Pain management of adult sedated and ventilated patients in the intensive care units: A survey with free text responses.

BACKGROUND: Pain management of sedated and ventilated patients in intensive care units lacks consistency. OBJECTIVES: To investigate nurses' training, governance, practices, knowledge and attitudes relating to pain management in consideration of published guidelines and explore nurses' perspectives. METHODS: A survey design, using an online questionnaire with free text responses, was employed. Quantitative and qualitative data from nurses working across different hospitals were collated and saved on Qualtrics platform. Quantitative data were analysed non-parametrically and narrative responses thematically. CROSS and SRQR reporting guidelines were adhered to. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, training, governance, clinical practice, knowledge, and attitudes. RESULTS/FINDINGS: 108 nurses participated with ninety-two completed surveys analysed. Analgesia was used to complete nursing tasks regardless of comfort needs (n = 49, 53.3 %). Changes in vital signs prompted opioid administration (n = 48, 52.1 %). Choice of analgesia depended on doctor's preference (n = 63, 68.5 %). Non-opioid therapy was administered before opioids (n = 42, 45.7 %). Sedatives were used to alleviate agitation(n = 50,54.3 %). No statistically significant difference in nurses' knowledge existed between hospitals. Weak positive relationship: r = [0.081], p = [0.441] between "knowledge scores" and "years of ICU experience" and weak negative relationship r = [-0.119], p = [0.260] between "knowledge scores" and "hours of clinical practice" was detected. Lack of training, resources, policies, high patient acuity and casual employment were acknowledged barriers to pain management. Two overarching themes emerged from narrative responses: "Pain assessment, where is it?" And "Priorities of critical illness." CONCLUSION: The study uncovered pain management situation and examined nurses' demographics, training, governance, practices, knowledge and attitudes. Narrative responses highlighted barriers to pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Health organisations should provide education, institute governance and develop policies to inform pain management. Nurses' role encompasses updating knowledge, adhering to interventions and overcoming biases. This subsequently manifests as improvement in patient outcomes.

Pain management interventions of the non-communicating patient in intensive care: What works for whom and why? A rapid realist review.

AIM: The utility and uptake of pain management interventions across intensive care settings is inconsistent. A rapid realist review was conducted to synthesise the evidence for the purpose of theory building and refinement. DESIGN: A five-step iterative process was employed to develop project scope/ research questions, collate evidence, appraise literature, synthesise evidence and interpret information from data sources. METHODS: Realist synthesis method was employed to systematically review literature for developing a programme theory. DATA SOURCES: Initial searches were undertaken in three electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINHAL and OVID. The review was supplemented with key articles from bibliographic search of identified articles. The first 200 hits from Google Scholar were screened. RESULTS: Three action-oriented themes emerged as integral to successful implementation of pain management interventions. These included health facility actions, unit/team leader actions and individual nurses' actions. CONCLUSION: Pain assessment interventions are influenced by a constellation of factors which trigger mechanisms yielding effective implementation outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: The results have implications on policy makers, health organisations, nursing teams and nurses concerned with optimising the successful implementation of pain management interventions. IMPACT: The review enabled formation of a programme theory concerned with explaining how to effectively implement pain management interventions in intensive care. REPORTING METHOD: This review was informed by RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. 10.17605/OSF.IO/J7AEZ.