[Therapeutic restraint management in Intensive Care Units: Phenomenological approach to nursing reality]. / Manejo de la inmovilización terapéutica en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos: aproximación fenomenológica a la realidad enfermera.

AIMS: To identify nursing experience on physical restraint management in Critical Care Units. To analyse similarities and differences in nursing experience on physical restraint management according to the clinical context that they are involved in. METHOD: A multicentre phenomenological study was carried out including 14 Critical Care Units in Madrid, classified according to physical restraint use: Common/systematic use, lacking/personalised use, and mixed use. Five focus groups (23 participants were selected following purposeful sampling) were convened, concluding in data saturation. Data analysis was focused on thematic content analysis following Colaizzi's method. FINDINGS: Six main themes: Physical restraint meaning in Critical Care Units, safety (self-retreat vital devices), contribution factors, feelings, alternatives, and pending issues. Although some themes are common to the 3 Critical Care Unit types, discourse differences are found as regards to indication, feelings, systematic use of pain and sedation measurement tools. CONCLUSIONS: In order to achieve real physical restraint reduction in Critical Care Units, it is necessary to have a deep understanding of restraints use in the specific clinical context. As self-retreat vital devices emerge as central concept, some interventions proposed in other settings could not be effective, requiring alternatives for critical care patients. Discourse variations laid out in the different Critical Care Unit types could highlight key items that determine the use and different attitudes towards physical restraint.

Psychometric validation of the behavioral indicators of pain scale for the assessment of pain in mechanically ventilated and unable to self-report critical care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of the behavioral indicators of pain scale (ESCID) when applied to a wide range of medical and surgical critical patients. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective observational study was designed to validate a scale measuring instrument. SETTING: Twenty Intensive Care Units of 14 hospitals belonging to the Spanish National Health System. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 286 mechanically ventilated, unable to self-report critically ill medical and surgical adult patients. PROCEDURE: Pain levels were measured by two independent evaluators simultaneously, using two scales: ESCID and the behavioral pain scale (BPS). Pain was observed before, during, and after two painful procedures (turning, tracheal suctioning) and one non-painful procedure. MAIN VARIABLES: ESCID reliability was measured on the basis of internal consistency using the Cronbach-α coefficient. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were measured. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between ESCID and BPS. RESULTS: A total of 4386 observations were made in 286 patients (62% medical and 38% surgical). High correlation was found between ESCID and BPS (r=0.94-0.99; p<0.001), together with high intra-rater and inter-rater concordance. ESCID was internally reliable, with a Cronbach-α value of 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). Cronbach-α coefficients for ESCID domains were high: facial expression 0.87 (95%CI 0.84-0.89), calmness 0.84 (95%CI 0.81-0.87), muscle tone 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), compliance with mechanical ventilation 0.70 (95%CI 0.63-0.75) and consolability 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). CONCLUSION: ESCID is valid and reliable for measuring pain in mechanically ventilated unable to self-report medical and surgical critical care patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01744717.

Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce physical restraints in critical care units.

Physical restraint use in critical care units is a frequent low-value care practice influenced by numerous factors creating a local culture. The translation of evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice is scarce so, the analysis of interventions to de-adopt this practice is needed. This update aims to describe and identify nonpharmacological interventions that contribute to minimising the use of physical restraints in adult critically ill patients. Interventions are classified into two groups: those that include education alone and those that combine training with one or more components (multicomponent interventions). These components include less restrictive restraint alternatives, use of physical and cognitive stimulation, decision support tools, institutional multidisciplinary committees, and team involvement. The heterogeneity in the design of the programmes and the low quality of the evidence of the interventions do not allow us to establish recommendations on their effectiveness. However, multicomponent interventions including training, physical and cognitive stimulation of the patient and a culture change of professionals and the organisations towards making restraints visible might be the most effective. The implementation of these programmes should underpin on a prior analysis of each local context to design the most effective-tailored combination of interventions to help reduce or eliminate them from clinical practice.

The use of mechanical restraint in critical care units: Characterisation, application standards and related factors. Results of a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and characterise the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in critical care units (CCU) in terms of frequency and quality of application and to study its relationship with pain/agitation-sedation/delirium, nurse:patient ratio and institutional involvement. METHOD: Multicentre observational study conducted in 17 CCUs between February and May 2016. The observation time per CCU was 96 h. The main variables were the prevalence of restraint, the degree of adherence to MR recommendations, pain/agitation-sedation/delirium monitoring and institutional involvement (protocols and training of professionals). RESULTS: A total of 1070 patients were included. The overall prevalence of restraint was 19.11%, in patients with endotracheal tube (ETT) 42.10% and in patients without ETT or artificial airway it was 13.92%. Adherence rates between 0% and 40% were obtained for recommendations related to non-pharmacological management and between 0% and 100% for those related to monitoring of ethical-legal aspects. The lower prevalence of restraint was correlated with adequate pain monitoring in non-communicative patients (P < .001) and with the provision of training for professionals (P = .020). An inverse correlation was found between the quality of the use of MR and its prevalence, both in the general group of patients admitted to CCU (r = -.431) and in the subgroup of patients with ETT (r = -.521). CONCLUSIONS: Restraint is especially frequently used in patients with ETT/artificial airway, but is also used in other patients who may not meet the use profile. There is wide room for improvement in non-pharmacological alternatives to the use of MC, ethical and legal vigilance, and institutional involvement. Better interpretation of patient behaviour with validated tools may help limit use of MR.

Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD. / Valoración de la analgesia, sedación, contenciones y delirio en los pacientes ingresados en unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas. Proyecto ASCyD.

AIMS: Main aim: To determine the Spanish intensive care units (ICU) that assess and record pain levels, sedation/agitation, delirium and the use of physical restraint (PR) as standard practice. Secondary aims: To determine the use of validated assessment tools and to explore patients' levels of pain and sedation/agitation, the prevalence of delirium, and the use of PR. METHOD: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study using an ad hoc survey with online access that consisted of 2 blocks. Block I: with questions on the unit's characteristics and routine practice; Block II: aspects of direct care and direct assessments of patients admitted to participating units. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight units and 1574 patients participated. The pain of communicative patients (CP) was assessed and recorded as standard in 109 units (69%), the pain of non-communicative patients (NCP) in 84 (53%), sedation/agitation in 111 (70%), and delirium in 39 units (25%). There was recorded use of PR in 39 units (25%). Validated scales were used to assess the pain of CP in 139 units (88%), of NCP in 102 (65%), sedation/agitation in 145 (92%), delirium in 53 units (34%). In 33 units (21%) pain, sedation/agitation and delirium of PC and NPC was assessed, and in 8 of these units there was a specific PR protocol and register. Among the patients who could be assessed, an absence of pain was reported in 57%, moderate pain in 27%; 48% were calm and collaborative, and 10% agitated; 21% had PR, and 12.6% of the patients had delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of pain, sedation and delirium is demonstrated, and low percentages of agitation and delirium achieved. We observed a high percentage of patients with pain, and moderate use of PC. We should generalise the use of protocols to assess, prevent and treat pain and delirium by appropriately managing analgesia, sedation, and individual and well-considered use of PC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874).

Physical restraint in critical care units from the experience of doctors and nursing assistants: In search of an interdisciplinary interpretation. / La contención mecánica en unidades de cuidados críticos desde la experiencia de los médicos y técnicos en cuidados auxiliares de enfermería: buscando una lectura interdisciplinar.

OBJECTIVES: The study aim was to explore the experience of doctors and nursing assistants in the management of physical restraint (PR) in critical care units. METHOD: A multicentre phenomenological study that included 14 critical care units (CCU) in Madrid (Spain). The CCU were stratified according to their use of physical restraint: "frequently used" versus "seldom used". Three focus groups were formed: the first comprised nursing assistants from CCUs that frequently used physical restraint, the second comprised nursing assistants from CCUs that seldom used physical constraint, and the final group comprised doctors from both CCU subtypes. Sampling method: purposive. DATA ANALYSIS: thematic content analysis. Data saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Four principle themes emerged: 1) concept of safety and risk (patient safety versus the safety of the professional), 2) types of restraint, 3) professional responsibilities (prescription, recording, and professional roles) and 4) "zero restraint" paradigm. The conceptualisation regarding the use of physical contentions shows differences in some of the principal themes, depending on the type of CCU, in terms of policies, use and management of physical constraint (frequently used versus seldom used). CONCLUSIONS: The real reduction in the use of physical restraint in CCU must be based on one crucial point: acceptance of the complexity of the phenomenon. The use of physical restraint observed in the different CCU is influenced by individual, group and organisational factors. These factors will determine how doctors and nursing assistants interpret safety and risk, the centre of care (patient or professional-centred care), the concept of restraint, professional responsibilities and interventions, interactions of the team and the leadership.

La reducción del uso de contenciones mecánicas, una asignatura pendiente y emergente en las UCI / Reducing the use of physical restraints, a pending and emerging matter at the ICU

No disponible

Creando un ambiente de empoderamiento en las unidades de cuidados intensivos: de la contención a la movilización / Creating an environment of empowerment in the intensive care units: From containment to mobilisation

No disponible

Herramientas de soporte a la decisión del uso de contenciones mecánicas en las unidades de cuidados intensivos: ¿son útiles? / Support tools for the decision to use mechanical restraints in intensive care units: Are they useful?

Antecedentes Disponemos de poca información acerca del uso de herramientas que ayuden a los enfermeros en las unidades de cuidados intensivos a decidir cuándo contener a un paciente. Los pacientes en las unidades de cuidados intensivos médico-quirúrgicas con frecuencia están con contención por su seguridad para prevenir la autorretirada de dispositivos terapéuticos. La investigación indica que las contenciones no necesariamente previenen de lesiones o de la retirada de dispositivos por parte de los pacientes. Objetivos Disminuir el uso de contenciones en una unidad de cuidados intensivos médico-quirúrgica y determinar si una herramienta de apoyo a la decisión es útil para ayudar a los enfermeros de pie de cama a determinar si se debe o no contener a un paciente. Método Un diseño de estudio cuasiexperimental se usó para este estudio piloto. Se recogieron variables para cada paciente en cada turno, indicando si hubo retiradas de dispositivos y si se usaron contenciones. Se proporcionó una actividad educativa online complementada con discusiones presenciales e individuales sobre el uso adecuado de contenciones, las alternativas y el uso de una herramienta de decisión sobre la utilización de contenciones. Se determinó la frecuencia de uso de contenciones. Se realizó estadística descriptiva y análisis temático para examinar las percepciones de los enfermeros sobre la herramienta de apoyo a la decisión. Resultados El uso de contenciones se redujo un 32%. No hubo extubaciones no planeadas o interrupción de los dispositivos terapéuticos de riesgo vital. Conclusiones Con la implementación de una herramienta de soporte a la decisión, los enfermeros disminuyeron el uso de contenciones aun manteniendo la seguridad del paciente. Una herramienta de apoyo a la decisión puede ayudar a los enfermeros que están indecisos o que necesitan confirmación de su decisión de contener o no a un paciente

No disponible

Uso de contenciones mecánicas en unidades de cuidados críticos: caracterización, estándares de aplicación y factores relacionados. Resultados de un estudio multicéntrico / The use of mechanical restraint in critical care units: Characterisation, application standards and related factors. Results of a multicentre study

Objetivos: Describir y caracterizar el uso de contenciones mecánicas (CM) en unidades de cuidados críticos (UCC) en términos de frecuencia y calidad de aplicación y analizar su relación con la monitorización del dolor/agitación-sedación/delirio, la ratio enfermera:paciente y la implicación institucional. Método: Estudio observacional multicéntrico realizado en 17 UCC entre febrero y mayo del año 2016. El tiempo de observación por UCC fue de 96h. Las principales variables fueron la prevalencia de contenciones, el grado de adherencia a las recomendaciones de uso de CM, la monitorización del dolor/agitación-sedación/delirio y la implicación institucional (protocolos y formación de los profesionales). Resultados: Se incluyeron 1.070 pacientes. La prevalencia general de contenciones fue del 19,11%, en pacientes con tubo endotraqueal (TET) del 42,10% y en pacientes sin TET ni vía aérea artificial del 13,92%. Se obtuvieron valores de adherencia entre el 0 y el 40% para las recomendaciones relacionadas con manejo no farmacológico y entre el 0 y el 100% para las relacionadas con la vigilancia de aspectos ético-legales. La menor prevalencia de contenciones se correlacionó con una adecuada monitorización del dolor en pacientes no comunicativos (p<0,001) y con la impartición de formación a los profesionales (p=0,020). Se halló correlación inversa entre la calidad de aplicación de CM y su prevalencia, tanto en el grupo general de pacientes ingresados en las UCC (r=−0,431) como en el subgrupo de pacientes con TET (r=−0,521). Conclusiones: Las contenciones son especialmente frecuentes en pacientes con TET/vía aérea artificial, pero también están presentes en otros pacientes que a priori no responden al perfil de uso atribuido. Las alternativas no farmacológicas al uso de CM, la vigilancia de aspectos éticos y legales y la implicación institucional presentan un amplio margen de mejora.(AU)

Objectives: To describe and characterise the use of mechanical restraint (MR) in critical care units (CCU) in terms of frequency and quality of application and to study its relationship with pain/agitation-sedation/delirium, nurse:patient ratio and institutional involvement. Method: Multicentre observational study conducted in 17 CCUs between February and May 2016. The observation time per CCU was 96h. The main variables were the prevalence of restraint, the degree of adherence to MR recommendations, pain/agitation-sedation/delirium monitoring and institutional involvement (protocols and training of professionals). Results: A total of 1070 patients were included. The overall prevalence of restraint was 19.11%, in patients with endotracheal tube (ETT) 42.10% and in patients without ETT or artificial airway it was 13.92%. Adherence rates between 0% and 40% were obtained for recommendations related to non-pharmacological management and between 0% and 100% for those related to monitoring of ethical-legal aspects. The lower prevalence of restraint was correlated with adequate pain monitoring in non-communicative patients (P<.001) and with the provision of training for professionals (P=.020). An inverse correlation was found between the quality of the use of MR and its prevalence, both in the general group of patients admitted to CCU (r=−.431) and in the subgroup of patients with ETT (r=−.521). Conclusions: Restraint is especially frequently used in patients with ETT/artificial airway, but is also used in other patients who may not meet the use profile. There is wide room for improvement in non-pharmacological alternatives to the use of MC, ethical and legal vigilance, and institutional involvement. Better interpretation of patient behaviour with validated tools may help limit use of MR.(AU)

Manejo de la inmovilización terapéutica en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos: aproximación fenomenológica a la realidad enfermera / Therapeutic restraint management in Intensive Care Units: Phenomenological approach to nursing reality

Objetivos: Comprender la experiencia vivida por los enfermeros respecto a la gestión de la inmovilización terapéutica en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos. Explorar similitudes y diferencias en la experiencia enfermera respecto al manejo de la inmovilización terapéutica según el medio en el que están insertos. Método: Estudio fenomenológico multicéntrico en 14 Unidades de Cuidados Críticos de la Comunidad de Madrid estratificadas según el uso de inmovilización terapéutica: frecuente/sistemático, escaso/individualizado y mixto. Recogida de datos: 5 grupos de discusión (23 participantes). Muestreo intencional por propósito. Tamaño muestral: hasta saturación de datos. Análisis crítico temático del contenido guiado por el método de Colaizzi. Resultados: Emergen 6 grandes temas: 1) significado de inmovilización terapéutica en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos, 2) seguridad (autorretirada de dispositivos de soporte vital), 3) factores favorecedores, 4) sentimientos, 5) alternativas y 6) problemas pendientes. Aunque se significan los mismos temas en los 3 tipos de unidades, se observan diferencias en el discurso (indicación, sentimientos, herramientas validadas para la medición de dolor, sedación…). Conclusiones: Para conseguir una reducción real de la inmovilización terapéutica en Unidades de Cuidados Críticos, resulta clave la comprensión profunda de su uso en el medio específico. Al identificarse como eje central la autorretirada de dispositivos de soporte vital, algunas medidas propuestas en otros ámbitos podrían no resultar pertinentes, precisándose alternativas encaminadas a pacientes críticos. Las variaciones del discurso planteadas en los distintos tipos de unidades podrían arrojar luz sobre los puntos clave que determinan las diferencias de uso y actitudes hacia la inmovilización terapéutica

Aims: To identify nursing experience on physical restraint management in Critical Care Units. To analyse similarities and differences in nursing experience on physical restraint management according to the clinical context that they are involved in. Method: A multicentre phenomenological study was carried out including 14 Critical Care Units in Madrid, classified according to physical restraint use: Common/systematic use, lacking/personalised use, and mixed use. Five focus groups (23 participants were selected following purposeful sampling) were convened, concluding in data saturation. Data analysis was focused on thematic content analysis following Colaizzi's method. Findings: Six main themes: Physical restraint meaning in Critical Care Units, safety (self-retreat vital devices), contribution factors, feelings, alternatives, and pending issues. Although some themes are common to the 3 Critical Care Unit types, discourse differences are found as regards to indication, feelings, systematic use of pain and sedation measurement tools. Conclusions: In order to achieve real physical restraint reduction in Critical Care Units, it is necessary to have a deep understanding of restraints use in the specific clinical context. As self-retreat vital devices emerge as central concept, some interventions proposed in other settings could not be effective, requiring alternatives for critical care patients. Discourse variations laid out in the different Critical Care Unit types could highlight key items that determine the use and different attitudes towards physical restraint

Psychometric validation of the behavioral indicators of pain scale for the assessment of pain in mechanically ventilated and unable to self-report critical care patients / Validación psicométrica de la Escala de Conductas Indicadoras de Dolor para la medición de dolor en pacientes críticos, no comunicativos y sometidos a ventilación mecánica

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of the behavioral indicators of pain scale (ESCID) when applied to a wide range of medical and surgical critical patients. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective observational study was designed to validate a scale measuring instrument. SETTING: Twenty Intensive Care Units of 14 hospitals belonging to the Spanish National Health System. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 286 mechanically ventilated, unable to self-report critically ill medical and surgical adult patients. Procedure: Pain levels were measured by two independent evaluators simultaneously, using two scales: ESCID and the behavioral pain scale (BPS). Pain was observed before, during, and after two painful procedures (turning, tracheal suctioning) and one non-painful procedure. MAIN VARIABLES: ESCID reliability was measured on the basis of internal consistency using the Cronbach-_ coefficient. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were measured. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between ESCID and BPS. RESULTS: A total of 4386 observations were made in 286 patients (62% medical and 38% surgical). High correlation was found between ESCID and BPS (r=0.94-0.99; p < 0.001), together with high intra-rater and inter-rater concordance. ESCID was internally reliable, with a Cronbach-_ value of 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). Cronbach-_ coefficients for ESCID domains were high: facial expression 0.87 (95%CI 0.84-0.89), calmness 0.84 (95%CI 0.81-0.87), muscle tone 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), compliance with mechanical ventilation 0.70 (95%CI 0.63-0.75) and consolability 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). CONCLUSION: ESCID is valid and reliable for measuring pain in mechanically ventilated unable to self-report medical and surgical critical care patients

OBJETIVO: Evaluar las propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Conductas Indicadoras de Dolor (ESCID), aplicada a una muestra amplia de pacientes críticos de patología médica y posquirúrgica. DISEÑO: Estudio multicéntrico, observacional, prospectivo de validación de una escala como instrumento de medida. Ámbito: Veinte Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos de 14 hospitales del Sistema Nacional de Salud español. PARTICIPANTES: Doscientos ochenta y seis pacientes críticos adultos, sometidos a ventilación mecánica, sin capacidad de comunicación, de patología médica y posquirúrgica. Intervención: Se midió el nivel de dolor de los pacientes por 2 observadores de manera simultánea y utilizando dos escalas: ESCID y la Behavoiral Pain Scale. El dolor fue medido antes, durante y después de la aplicación de dos procedimientos dolorosos (movilización y aspiración endotraqueal) y un procedimiento no doloroso. Variables de interés: La fiabilidad de ESCID se midió mediante la consistencia interna determinada con el coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Se midió la concordancia inter- e intraobservadores. Se determinó la correlación entre las escalas ESCID y Behavoiral Pain Scale mediante el coeficiente de Spearman. RESULTADOS: Se realizaron 4.386 observaciones de dolor en 286 pacientes (62% patología médica y 38% posquirúrgica). Se evidencia una alta correlación entre ESCID y Behavoiral Pain Scale(r = 0,94-0,99; p < 0,001) así como una alta concordancia inter- e intraobservador. La escala ESCID presenta buena consistencia interna, con un valor de α-Cronbach de 0,85 (IC 95% 0,81-0,88). Los 5 dominios de ESCID presentan alta consistencia interna con α-Cronbach: musculatura facial 0,87 (IC 95% 0,84-0,89), tranquilidad 0,84 (IC 95% 0,81-0,87), tono muscular 0,80 (IC 95% 0,75-0,84), adaptación a ventilación mecánica 0,70 (IC 95% 0,63-0,75) y confortabilidad 0,85 (IC 95% 0,81-0,88). CONCLUSIÓN: ESCID es válida y fiable para medir el dolor en pacientes críticos médicos y posquirúrgicos, no comunicativos y sometidos a ventilación mecánica

Intervenciones no farmacológicas para la promoción del sueño en la UCI / Non-pharmacological interventions for sleep promotion in the ICU

No disponible

Valoración de la analgesia, sedación, contenciones y delirio en los pacientes ingresados en unidades de cuidados intensivos españolas. Proyecto ASCyD / Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD

Objetivos: Objetivo principal: Conocer qué unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) españolas valoran y registran, de forma normalizada, niveles de dolor, sedación/agitación, delirio y uso de contenciones mecánicas (CM). Objetivos secundarios: Determinar la utilización de herramientas validadas de valoración y explorar los niveles de dolor y sedación/agitación de los pacientes, la prevalencia de deliro y el uso de CM. Método: Estudio observacional, descriptivo, transversal, prospectivo y multicéntrico mediante una encuesta ad hoc con acceso on line, de 2 bloques: bloque1, enfocado a preguntas sobre características de las unidades y práctica habitual, y bloque 2, sobre aspectos de asistencia directa y evaluaciones directas de pacientes ingresados en unidades participantes. Resultados: Participaron 158 unidades y 1.574 pacientes. La valoración normalizada y el registro del dolor de pacientes comunicativos (PC) se realizaba en 109 unidades (69%), el dolor de pacientes no comunicativos (PNC) en 84 (53%), la sedación/agitación en 111 (70%), el delirio en 39 unidades (25%). Registrado el uso de CM en 39 unidades (25%). Se utilizaban escalas validadas para valorar el dolor en PC en 139 unidades (88%), en PNC en 102 (65%), sedación/agitación en 145 (92%), delirio en 53 unidades (34%). En 33 unidades (21%) se valoraba dolor a PC y PNC, sedación/agitación y delirio, y en 8 de estas unidades existía protocolo específico de CM y registro. Entre los pacientes que pudieron ser evaluados, se reportó ausencia de dolor en el 57%, dolor moderado en el 27%; tranquilos y colaboradores el 48%, y el 10% agitados; tenían CM el 21% y delirio el 12,6% de los pacientes. Conclusiones: La valoración del dolor, sedación y delirio está acreditada, obteniéndose bajos porcentajes de pacientes con agitación y delirio. Observamos un elevado porcentaje de pacientes con dolor y moderado uso de la CM. Hay que generalizar el uso de protocolos para valorar, prevenir y tratar el dolor y el delirio mediante un adecuado manejo de la analgesia, de la sedación y un uso individual y reflexivo de las CM. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874)

Aims: Main aim: To determine the Spanish intensive care units (ICU) that assess and record pain levels, sedation/agitation, delirium and the use of physical restraint (PR) as standard practice. Secondary aims: To determine the use of validated assessment tools and to explore patients’ levels of pain and sedation/agitation, the prevalence of delirium, and the use of PR. Method: An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study using an ad hoc survey with online access that consisted of 2 blocks. Block I: with questions on the unit's characteristics and routine practice; Block II: aspects of direct care and direct assessments of patients admitted to participating units. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight units and 1574 patients participated. The pain of communicative patients (CP) was assessed and recorded as standard in 109 units (69%), the pain of non-communicative patients (NCP) in 84 (53%), sedation/agitation in 111 (70%), and delirium in 39 units (25%). There was recorded use of PR in 39 units (25%). Validated scales were used to assess the pain of CP in 139 units (88%), of NCP in 102 (65%), sedation/agitation in 145 (92%), delirium in 53 units (34%). In 33 units (21%) pain, sedation/agitation and delirium of PC and NPC was assessed, and in 8 of these units there was a specific PR protocol and register. Among the patients who could be assessed, an absence of pain was reported in 57%, moderate pain in 27%; 48% were calm and collaborative, and 10% agitated; 21% had PR, and 12.6% of the patients had delirium. Conclusions: The assessment of pain, sedation and delirium is demonstrated, and low percentages of agitation and delirium achieved. We observed a high percentage of patients with pain, and moderate use of PC. We should generalise the use of protocols to assess, prevent and treat pain and delirium by appropriately managing analgesia, sedation, and individual and well-considered use of PC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874)

La contención mecánica en unidades de cuidados críticos desde la experiencia de los médicos y técnicos en cuidados auxiliares de enfermería: buscando una lectura interdisciplinar / Physical restraint in critical care units from the experience of doctors and nursing assistants: In search of an interdisciplinary interpretation

Objetivos: El objetivo fue explorar la experiencia de médicos y técnicos en cuidados auxiliares de enfermería (TCAE) respecto al manejo de contenciones mecánicas en unidades de cuidados críticos. Método: Estudio fenomenológico multicéntrico que incluyó 14 unidades de cuidados críticos (UCC) de Madrid (España). Las UCC fueron estratificadas en función del uso de contenciones mecánicas: «uso frecuente» versus «uso escaso». Se realizaron 3 grupos de discusión: el primero compuesto por TCAE procedentes de UCC con uso frecuente de contenciones mecánicas, el segundo grupo por TCAE de UCC de uso escaso de contenciones mecánicas y el último grupo por médicos de ambos subtipos de UCC. Método de muestreo: por propósito. Análisis de datos: análisis temático de contenido. Se alcanzó la saturación de los datos. Resultados: Emergen 4 temas principales: 1) concepto de seguridad y riesgo (seguridad del paciente versus seguridad del profesional); 2) tipos de contenciones; 3) responsabilidades profesionales (prescripción, registro y roles profesionales); y 4) paradigma «contención cero». La conceptualización sobre el uso de contenciones mecánicas muestra diferencias en algunos de los temas principales dependiendo del tipo de UCC en cuanto a políticas, uso y manejo de contenciones mecánicas (uso frecuente versus uso escaso). Conclusiones: La reducción real del uso de contenciones mecánicas en UCC debe partir de un punto clave: la aceptación de la complejidad del fenómeno. El uso de contenciones mecánicas observado en las diferentes UCC está influenciado por factores individuales, grupales y organizativos. Estos factores determinan las interpretaciones que médicos y TCAE realizan sobre seguridad y riesgo, el centro del cuidado (cuidado centrado en el paciente o en el profesional), el concepto de contención, las responsabilidades e intervenciones profesionales y las interacciones del equipo y el liderazgo

Objectives: The study aim was to explore the experience of doctors and nursing assistants in the management of physical restraint (PR) in critical care units. Method; A multicentre phenomenological study that included 14 critical care units (CCU) in Madrid (Spain). The CCU were stratified according to their use of physical restraint: "frequently used" versus "seldom used". Three focus groups were formed: the first comprised nursing assistants from CCUs that frequently used physical restraint, the second comprised nursing assistants from CCUs that seldom used physical constraint, and the final group comprised doctors from both CCU subtypes. Sampling method: purposive. Data analysis: thematic content analysis. Data saturation was achieved. Results: Four principle themes emerged: 1) concept of safety and risk (patient safety versus the safety of the professional), 2) types of restraint, 3) professional responsibilities (prescription, recording, and professional roles) and 4) "zero restraint" paradigm. The conceptualisation regarding the use of physical contentions shows differences in some of the principal themes, depending on the type of CCU, in terms of policies, use and management of physical constraint (frequently used versus seldom used). Conclusions; The real reduction in the use of physical restraint in CCU must be based on one crucial point: acceptance of the complexity of the phenomenon. The use of physical restraint observed in the different CCU is influenced by individual, group and organisational factors. These factors will determine how doctors and nursing assistants interpret safety and risk, the centre of care (patient or professional-centred care), the concept of restraint, professional responsibilities and interventions, interactions of the team and the leadership