Literature DB >> 25129576

Correlation of patient-reported outcomes of sedation and sedation assessment scores in critically ill patients.

Neal Benedict1, Matthew Felbinger2, Ty Ridenour2, Ananth Anthes2, Shoroq Altawalbeh2, Sandra Kane-Gill2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended as indicators of quality in the intensive care unit. We studied the correlation between PROs of sedation quality and a universal sedation assessment scale in critically ill patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine mechanically ventilated adults admitted to a surgical/trauma or medical intensive care unit requiring continuous infusion sedation for 24 hours or more were prospectively included. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated through sedation questionnaire 24 hours post-continuous infusion sedation. The primary outcome was the correlation of PROs with Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) scores.
RESULTS: Mean (SD) SAS scores per 12-hour nursing shift for propofol (n=179), midazolam (n=42), and dexmedetomidine (n=8) were 3.78 (77), 3.31 (1.1), and 2.98 (0.76), respectively. The mean score for survey questions addressing perceptions of comfort was 5.3 (1, complete comfort; 10, not comfortable at all). Of the patients, 34%, 7%, and 52% would want more, less, or the same amount of sedation, respectively, if this situation were to arise again. Patient perception of comfort correlated with the percent time at goal SAS score; r=0.31 (P<.05).
CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes of sedation correlate with the percentage of time spent in the goal range of scores for a universal sedation assessment scale. These findings represent initial attempts to appreciate the patient's perspective in the management and monitoring of agitation.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dexmedetomidine; Midazolam; Patient reported outcomes; Propofol; Questionnaire; Sedation assessment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25129576     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.06.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Crit Care        ISSN: 0883-9441            Impact factor:   3.425


  5 in total

1.  Illustrating idiographic methods for translation research: moderation effects, natural clinical experiments, and complex treatment-by-subgroup interactions.

Authors:  Ty A Ridenour; Andrea K Wittenborn; Bethany R Raiff; Neal Benedict; Sandra Kane-Gill
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Outcome Assessment of Critical Care Pharmacist Services.

Authors:  Seth R Bauer; Sandra L Kane-Gill
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2016-07

3.  Letting the Patient Decide: A Case Report of Self-Administered Sedation During Mechanical Ventilation.

Authors:  Breanna Hetland; Sarah Maryon Hayes; Debra Skaar; Mary Fran Tracy; Craig R Weinert; Linda Chlan
Journal:  Crit Care Nurse       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.708

4.  Differences in efficacy and safety of midazolam vs. dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Wen-Jun Zhou; Mei Liu; Xue-Peng Fan
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 2.447

5.  Rationale, design and methodology of a trial evaluating three strategies designed to improve sedation quality in intensive care units (DESIST study).

Authors:  Timothy S Walsh; Kalliopi Kydonaki; Jean Antonelli; Jacqueline Stephen; Robert J Lee; Kirsty Everingham; Janet Hanley; Kimmo Uutelo; Petra Peltola; Christopher J Weir
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.