PURPOSE: Systematic monitoring of sedation, pain and delirium in the ICU is of paramount importance in delivering adequate patient care. While the use of systematic monitoring instruments is widely agreed upon, these tools are infrequently implemented into daily ICU care. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two different training strategies (training according to the local standard vs. modified extended method) on the implementation rate of scoring instruments on the ICU. METHODS: In this experimental cohort study we analyzed the frequency of scoring on three surgical ICUs before and after training, and in a 1 year follow-up. A modified extended training included establishing a local support team helping to resolve immediate problems. In addition we evaluated the impact on patients' outcome. RESULTS: ICUs trained by the modified extended method showed increased documentation rates of all scores per patient and day. In a 1 year follow-up, increased scoring rates for all scores were maintained. Scoring rates with training according to the local standard training protocol did not increase significantly. Implementation of delirium and pain monitoring were associated with a decrease in mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.451; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.924, and, respectively, OR 0.348; 95 % CI: 0.140-0.863]. Monitoring had no significant influence on ventilation time or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: A modified extended training strategy for ICU monitoring tools (sedation, pain, delirium) leads to higher intermediate and long-term implementation rates and is associated with improved patient outcome. However, these findings may have been biased by unmeasured confounders.
PURPOSE: Systematic monitoring of sedation, pain and delirium in the ICU is of paramount importance in delivering adequate patient care. While the use of systematic monitoring instruments is widely agreed upon, these tools are infrequently implemented into daily ICU care. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two different training strategies (training according to the local standard vs. modified extended method) on the implementation rate of scoring instruments on the ICU. METHODS: In this experimental cohort study we analyzed the frequency of scoring on three surgical ICUs before and after training, and in a 1 year follow-up. A modified extended training included establishing a local support team helping to resolve immediate problems. In addition we evaluated the impact on patients' outcome. RESULTS: ICUs trained by the modified extended method showed increased documentation rates of all scores per patient and day. In a 1 year follow-up, increased scoring rates for all scores were maintained. Scoring rates with training according to the local standard training protocol did not increase significantly. Implementation of delirium and pain monitoring were associated with a decrease in mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.451; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.22-0.924, and, respectively, OR 0.348; 95 % CI: 0.140-0.863]. Monitoring had no significant influence on ventilation time or ICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: A modified extended training strategy for ICU monitoring tools (sedation, pain, delirium) leads to higher intermediate and long-term implementation rates and is associated with improved patient outcome. However, these findings may have been biased by unmeasured confounders.
Authors: K Milisen; M D Foreman; I L Abraham; S De Geest; J Godderis; E Vandermeulen; B Fischler; H H Delooz; B Spiessens; P L Broos Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: E Wesley Ely; Ayumi Shintani; Brenda Truman; Theodore Speroff; Sharon M Gordon; Frank E Harrell; Sharon K Inouye; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy D Girard; John P Kress; Barry D Fuchs; Jason W W Thomason; William D Schweickert; Brenda T Pun; Darren B Taichman; Jan G Dunn; Anne S Pohlman; Paul A Kinniry; James C Jackson; Angelo E Canonico; Richard W Light; Ayumi K Shintani; Jennifer L Thompson; Sharon M Gordon; Jesse B Hall; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-01-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ashley W Collinsworth; Elisa L Priest; Claudia R Campbell; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Andrew L Masica Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Song Yuin Lee; James Fisher; Anne P F Wand; Koen Milisen; Elke Detroyer; Sanjeev Sockalingam; Meera Agar; Annmarie Hosie; Andrew Teodorczuk Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Tarek Sharshar; Giuseppe Citerio; Peter J D Andrews; Arturo Chieregato; Nicola Latronico; David K Menon; Louis Puybasset; Claudio Sandroni; Robert D Stevens Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michele C Balas; William J Burke; David Gannon; Marlene Z Cohen; Lois Colburn; Catherine Bevil; Doug Franz; Keith M Olsen; E Wesley Ely; Eduard E Vasilevskis Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Simon Poignant; Bernard Vigué; Patricia Balram; Mathieu Biais; Romain Carillon; Vincent Cottenceau; Claire Dahyot-Fizelier; Vincent Degos; Thomas Geeraerts; Patrick Jeanjean; Emmanuel Vega; Sigismond Lasocki; Fabien Espitalier; Marc Laffon Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 3.210