Positive communication behaviour during handover and team-based clinical performance in critical situations: a simulation randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Positive communication behaviour within anaesthesia teams may decrease stress response and improve clinical performance. We aimed to evaluate the effect of positive communication during medical handover on the subsequent team-based clinical performance in a simulated critical situation. We also assessed the effect of positive communication behaviour on stress response. METHODS: This single-centre RCT involved anaesthesia teams composed of a resident and a nurse in a high-fidelity scenario of anaesthesia-related paediatric laryngospasm after a standardised handover. During the handover, similar information was provided to all teams, but positive communication behaviour was adopted only for teams in the intervention group. Primary outcome was team-based clinical performance, assessed by an independent blinded observer, using video recordings and a 0-to 100-point scenario-specific scoring tool. Three categories of tasks were considered: safety checks before the incision, diagnosis/treatment of laryngospasm, and crisis resource management/non-technical skills. Individual stress response was monitored by perceived level of stress and HR variability. RESULTS: The clinical performance of 64 anaesthesia professionals (grouped into 32 teams) was analysed. The mean (standard deviation) team-based performance score in the intervention group was 44 (10) points vs 35 (12) in the control group (difference: +8.4; CI95% [0.4-16.4]; P=0.04). The effects were homogeneous over the three categories of tasks. Perceived level of stress and HR variability were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Positive communication behaviour between healthcare professionals during medical handover improved team-based performance in a simulation-based critical situation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03375073.

Intranasal sufentanil versus intravenous morphine for acute severe trauma pain: A double-blind randomized non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous morphine (IVM) is the most common strong analgesic used in trauma, but is associated with a clear time limitation related to the need to obtain an access route. The intranasal (IN) route provides easy administration with a fast peak action time due to high vascularization and the absence of first-pass metabolism. We aimed to determine whether IN sufentanil (INS) for patients presenting to an emergency department with acute severe traumatic pain results in a reduction in pain intensity non-inferior to IVM. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority trial conducted in the emergency departments of 6 hospitals across France, patients were randomized 1:1 to INS titration (0.3 µg/kg and additional doses of 0.15 µg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if numerical pain rating scale [NRS] > 3) and intravenous placebo, or to IVM (0.1 mg/kg and additional doses of 0.05 mg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if NRS > 3) and IN placebo. Patients, clinical staff, and research staff were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the total decrease on NRS at 30 minutes after first administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -1.3 on the NRS. The primary outcome was analyzed per protocol. Adverse events were prospectively recorded during 4 hours. Among the 194 patients enrolled in the emergency department cohort between November 4, 2013, and April 10, 2016, 157 were randomized, and the protocol was correctly administered in 136 (69 IVM group, 67 INS group, per protocol population, 76% men, median age 40 [IQR 29 to 54] years). The mean difference between NRS at first administration and NRS at 30 minutes was -4.1 (97.5% CI -4.6 to -3.6) in the IVM group and -5.2 (97.5% CI -5.7 to -4.6) in the INS group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (p < 0.001 with 1-sided mean-equivalence t test), as the lower 97.5% confidence interval of 0.29 (97.5% CI 0.29 to 1.93) was above the prespecified margin of -1.3. INS was superior to IVM (intention to treat analysis: p = 0.034), but without a clinically significant difference in mean NRS between groups. Six severe adverse events were observed in the INS group and 2 in the IVM group (number needed to harm: 17), including an apparent imbalance for hypoxemia (3 in the INS group versus 1 in the IVM group) and for bradypnea (2 in the INS group versus 0 in the IVM group). The main limitation of the study was that the choice of concomitant analgesics, when they were used, was left to the discretion of the physician in charge, and co-analgesia was more often used in the IVM group. Moreover, the size of the study did not allow us to conclude with certainty about the safety of INS in emergency settings. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the non-inferiority of INS compared to IVM for pain reduction at 30 minutes after administration in patients with severe traumatic pain presenting to an emergency department. The IN route, with no need to obtain a venous route, may allow early and effective analgesia in emergency settings and in difficult situations. Confirmation of the safety profile of INS will require further larger studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02095366. EudraCT 2013-001665-16.

Toward individualized sedation in patients with acute brain damage.

Sedation/analgesia in patients with acute brain damage, either traumatic or non-traumatic, is paramount to prevent alterations in brain perfusion secondary to the injury. Despite reviews on sedative and analgesic drugs, adequate sedation is an overlooked therapy in the prevention and treatment of intracranial hypertension. When to indicate continued sedation? How to guide the level of sedation? How to terminate sedation? This narrative review provides a practical approach to the individualized use of sedative/analgesic drugs in patients with acute brain damage.