Sevoflurane for Short Painful Procedures in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the use and safety of a sedation protocol with sevoflurane for short painful procedures in newborns. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective and observational study conducted in a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit. Sevoflurane was recommended in patients undergoing an invasive procedure of short length, especially in those with spontaneous breathing or without venous access. Its safety and efficacy was assessed by continuous monitoring of respiratory and hemodynamic variables and clinical data recording. RESULTS: Sevoflurane was used for 39 procedures, the main indications were: intravitreal bevacizumab injection (12), central venous catheterization (11), and biopsy (6). The median administration length was 14 minutes (range: 5-65 minutes). The median minimum dose was 1.5% (range: 1-3%). The median maximum dose was 2.5% (range: 1-6%). An effective control of nociceptive manifestations was achieved in 35 cases (90%). No major adverse effects were noticed. Main adverse effects were hypotension (8), desaturation (4), and apnea (3). All of them were solved by decreasing (14) or discontinuing (1) the administration of sevoflurane. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane is relatively easy to use and provides an optimal control of pain-related symptoms. Its prescription should be individualized and more long-term follow-up data are needed.

Healthcare staff as promoters of parental presence at anesthetic induction: Net Promoter Score survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention is usually a traumatic event that causes stress and anxiety in the pediatric patient and the family environment. To reduce the harmful effects of presurgical anxiety, parental presence during induction of anesthesia (PPIA) is one of the more notable interventions used in medical centers. However, data on this measure are difficult to evaluate and often face resistance from healthcare staff. AIM: To analyze the perception of the healthcare workers after the implementation of a PPIA program. METHODS: A survey was developed and sent by email to all the healthcare staff working in the children's area of a tertiary hospital. It consisted of 14 items divided into positive aspects of PPIA and negative aspects of PPIA evaluated with the use of a Likert scale (1 to 5). The demographics of the respondents were included in the data collected. The answers to the questions were interpreted through the Net Promoter Score (NPS). The statistical analysis compared the differences in the responses to each question of the survey made by the different groups of health personnel included. RESULTS: A total of 141 surveys were sent out, with a response rate of 69%. Of the total number of responses, 68% were from women and 32% from men. The average age of the participants was 42.3 ± 10.6 years. As for the positive questions about the PPIA, 83% had an NPS > 50, and only one had a score between 0 and 50, which means that the quality of the service was rated as excellent or good by 100% of the respondents. On the other hand, 100% of the negative questions about the PPIA had a negative NPS. Responses to the question "PPIA increases patient safety" were significantly different (P = 0.037), with a lower percentage of pediatric surgeons (70%) thinking that PPIA increased patient safety, compared with anesthesiologists (90%), nursing (92%), and other medical personnel (96%). CONCLUSION: The personnel who participated in the PPIA program at our center were in favor of implementation. There were no validated arguments to support worker resistance to the development of the PPIA.