Retirada accidental de sondas enterales en el paciente crítico / Accidental removal of feeding tubes in critical patients

Objetivo: evaluar el impacto de una sesión formativa en las tasas de retirada accidental (RA) [autorretirada y retirada por causa externa al paciente (CEP)] de la sonda enteral (SE) y en los niveles de analgosedación e identificación del delirio, en pacientes de un Servicio de Cuidados Intensivos y Grandes Quemados (UCI-UGQ).Método: estudio observacional prospectivo antes-después, realizado en una UCI-UGQ de 24 camas. Primer periodo: del 15-10-2018 al 15-01-2019, segundo periodo: del 15-07-2019 al 15-01-2020. Entre periodos se comunicaron los resultados y se hizo una sesión formativa (sujeción SE, valoración dolor, sedación y delirio). Incluidos todos los pacientes portadores de SE. Variables: demográficas, gravedad, motivo de retirada, evento adverso como consecuencia de la retirada o reinserción, dolor, sedación/agitación y delirio. Análisis: descriptivo y tasas de incidencia por 1.000 días dispositivo. Aprobado por CEIm.Resultados: ingresos en 2018 vs. 2019: 232 vs. 408 (1.586 vs. 3.149 días estancia); mujeres: 34% vs. 42%. SAPS III, Mediana (RIC): 57 (45-67) vs. 45 (33-54). Insertadas 156 vs. 295 SE. Tasas de RA por 1.000 días de dispositivo: global 56,68 vs. 45,87 (p= 0,42); autorretirada 48,13 vs. 37,72 (p= 0,36), CEP 8,56 vs. 8,15 (p= 0,90). No se registraron eventos adversos. En el momento de la autorretirada presentaban dolor (EVN/ESCID> 0) 26,6% vs. 19% pacientes; agitación (RASS> 0) 66,6% vs. 40,6% pacientes; delirio (CAM-ICU positivo) 33,3% vs. 20,3% pacientes.Conclusiones: tras la sesión formativa se observó una reducción no significativa en las tasas de RA. En las autorretiradas se comprobó un descenso significativo de la agitación y un descenso clínicamente relevante del dolor y presencia de delirio.(AU)

Objective: to assess the impact of a training session on accidental removal (AR) rates of the feeding tube (FT) [self-removal and removal due to a cause external to the patient (CEP] and on the levels of analgesia & sedation and delirium detection, in patients from an Intensive Care and Major Burns Unit (ICU-MBU).Method: an observational, before-and-after, prospective study, conducted in a 24-bed ICU-MBU- First period: October, 15th, 2018 to January, 15th, 2019: second period: July, 15th, 2019 to January, 15th, 2020. Results were reported between periods, and a training session was conducted (FT attachment, pain assessment, sedation, and delirium). All patients with FT were included. Variables: demographics, severity, reason for removal, adverse event as a consequence of removal or reinsertion, pain, sedation/agitation, and delirium. Analysis: descriptive, and incidence rates per 1,000 device days. Approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee (CEIm).Results: hospitalizations in 2018 vs. 2019: 232 vs. 408 (1,586 vs. 3,149 hospitalization days); women: 34% vs. 42%. SAPS III, Median (IQR): 57 (45-67) vs. 45 (33-54). FTs inserted: 156 vs. 295. AR rates per 1,000 device days: overall 56.68 vs. 45.87 (p= 0.42); self-removal: 48.13 vs. 37.72 (p= 0.36), CEP 8.56 vs. 8.15 (p= 0.90). No adverse events were reported. At the time of self-removal, 26.6% vs. 19% patients presented pain (VAS/ESCID> 0); 66.6% vs. 40.6% patients presented agitation (RASS> 0, and 33.3% vs. 20.3% patients presented delirium (positive CAM-ICU).Conclusions: after the training session, a non-significant reduction in AR rates was observed. In cases of self-removal, a significant reduction in agitation was observed, as well as a clinically relevant reduction in pain and presence of delirium.(AU)

Validation of the Behavioural Indicators of Pain Scale ESCID for pain assessment in non-communicative and mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a research protocol.

AIM: To investigate the validity and reliability of the Behavioural Indicators of Pain Scale (ESCID) in medically and surgically non-communicative and mechanically ventilated critical patients. BACKGROUND: Scales based on behavioural indicators of pain are suggested to measure pain in non-communicative critically ill patients. Scales proposed thus far have a range not comparable to those used with patients who can report their pain. A scale with a 0-10 range and more behavioural indicators is proposed to improve the detection and measurement of pain. DESIGN: A multicentre prospective observational design to validate a scale-measuring instrument. METHODS: Three hundred non-communicative and mechanically ventilated critical patients from 20 different intensive care units will be observed for 5 minutes before, during and 15 minutes after three procedures: turning, tracheal suctioning and soft friction with gauze on healthy tissue. Two independent observers will assess the pain of subjects with the Behavioural Pain Scale and the ESCID scale simultaneously. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used. Student's t-test will be used to compare components of the twos scales. Inter-rater and intrarater agreement will be investigated. The reliability scale will be measured using Cronbach's alpha. Approval date for this protocol was January 2012. DISCUSSION: A greater number of behavioural indicators in the ESCID scale than in previously validated scales, with a 0-10 score range, can improve the detection and measurement of pain in non-communicative and mechanically ventilated critical patients. Funding granted in 2011 by the Spanish Health Research Fund (PI 11/00766, Health Ministry). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01744717).

Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on weaning outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of the implementation of a nursing-driven protocol of sedation on duration of intubation. DESIGN: Before-and-after prospective study. SETTING: 18-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Patients receiving mechanical ventilation longer than 48 hrs who were ready to wean. INTERVENTIONS: During the observational period, sedatives and analgesics were adjusted according to physicians' orders. During the intervention period, sedatives and analgesics were adjusted by nurses according to an algorithm-based sedation guideline, including a sedation scale. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were included in the study (176 patients in the observational period and 189 patients in the intervention period). There were no significant differences in the duration of intubation between the two periods (median, 7 [interquartile range, 5-13] days vs. 7 [interquartile range, 5-9] days). In a Kaplan-Meier analysis, the probability of successful extubation was higher during the intervention period than during the observational period (log-rank = 0.02). During the intervention period, patients were more awake without a significant increment in the nurse workload; however, there was no significant decrease in the total doses of sedatives and analgesics administered. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a nursing-driven protocol of sedation may improve the probability of successful extubation in a heterogeneous population of mechanically ventilated patients.