BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although clinical guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of pain in ICU patients, we know little about the effects from such systematic pain evaluation. This study aims to quantify the effect of a pain management programme in the ICU. METHODS: In this prospective two-phase study, pain levels scored by ICU patients after cardiac surgery through sternotomy were compared before and after the implementation of a pain management programme. The pain management programme consisted of a three-fold strategy; all staff was trained in assessing pain and in providing adequate analgesia, a new patient data management system obliged nurses to ask patients for their pain score three times a day and the preferred analgesic treatment was optimised. The numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10) was used by 190 patients. A NRS at least 4 was considered unacceptable. A generalised linear mixed-effects model was used for analysing repeated measurements data. RESULTS: The occurrence of unacceptable pain (NRS > or = 4) was significantly lower in the intervention group [odds ratio 2.54 (95% confidence interval 1.22-5.65; P = 0.01) for the control group]. Patients in the intervention group received significantly more morphine (29.3 vs. 22.6 mg a day, P<0.01), with higher morphine amounts administered to patients with higher NRS scores (P = 0.01). In the control group, no such relationship was observed (P = 0.66). There was no difference in length of stay in the ICU or in ventilation time. CONCLUSION: The intervention programme successfully reduced the occurrence of unacceptable pain. Further improvement of pain management should focus on the prevention of pain.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although clinical guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of pain in ICU patients, we know little about the effects from such systematic pain evaluation. This study aims to quantify the effect of a pain management programme in the ICU. METHODS: In this prospective two-phase study, pain levels scored by ICU patients after cardiac surgery through sternotomy were compared before and after the implementation of a pain management programme. The pain management programme consisted of a three-fold strategy; all staff was trained in assessing pain and in providing adequate analgesia, a new patient data management system obliged nurses to ask patients for their pain score three times a day and the preferred analgesic treatment was optimised. The numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10) was used by 190 patients. A NRS at least 4 was considered unacceptable. A generalised linear mixed-effects model was used for analysing repeated measurements data. RESULTS: The occurrence of unacceptable pain (NRS > or = 4) was significantly lower in the intervention group [odds ratio 2.54 (95% confidence interval 1.22-5.65; P = 0.01) for the control group]. Patients in the intervention group received significantly more morphine (29.3 vs. 22.6 mg a day, P<0.01), with higher morphine amounts administered to patients with higher NRS scores (P = 0.01). In the control group, no such relationship was observed (P = 0.66). There was no difference in length of stay in the ICU or in ventilation time. CONCLUSION: The intervention programme successfully reduced the occurrence of unacceptable pain. Further improvement of pain management should focus on the prevention of pain.
Authors: Sabine J G M Ahlers; Laure L Elens; Laura van Gulik; Ron H van Schaik; Eric P A van Dongen; Peter Bruins; Dick Tibboel; Catherijne A J Knibbe Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.335