Margaret Louise Phillips1, Vijo Kuruvilla2, Michael Bailey3. 1. Intensive Care Unit, Royal Darwin Hospital, 105 Rocklands Drive, Tiwi NT 0810, Australia. Electronic address: margaret.phillips@nt.gov.au. 2. Intensive Care Unit, Royal Darwin Hospital, 105 Rocklands Drive, Tiwi NT 0810, Australia. Electronic address: vijo.kuruvilla@nt.gov.au. 3. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 3, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne VIC 3004, Australia. Electronic address: michael.bailey@monash.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is a common stressor for ICU patients, necessitating routine assessment. For patients who are unable to communicate, self-report tools are unsuitable, and the use of an observational tool is required to assess pain appropriately. The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is the most reliable tool currently available to assess pain in these patients. We investigated whether the implementation of the CPOT in one Australian ICU could increase frequency of appropriate pain assessments, and if this would affect the administration of analgesia and sedation. METHODS: In this before and after study, we first performed a retrospective chart audit on 441 adult ICU patient charts, over 49 days. Data collected included frequency and type of pain assessments, sedation and analgesia administered, communication and CAM-ICU status, and bedside nurse-perceived pain. During the implementation phase, new policy and guideline documents were released, and ICU charts were redesigned to incorporate the CPOT. All nursing staff attended an education session on pain assessment and correct use of the CPOT. The chart audit was repeated, capturing 344 charts over 43 days. RESULTS: Mean total assessments in 24 hours increased from 7.2 to 7.9 for communicative, 3.0 to 8.9 for non-communicative, and 5.1 to 9.1 for transitioning patients. For non-communicative patients there was a significant increase in observational assessments including the CPOT (1.7 to 8.3), and a decrease in inappropriate use of self-report tools (1.3 to 0.2). We also observed significant increases in administration of paracetamol, opiates, propofol, patient-controlled analgesia, modified-release opiates, and neuropathic pain agents. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CPOT using standardised education and resources led to increased frequency of pain assessment, particularly for non-communicative patients. Appropriate observational assessments were also more frequently used for these patients. Analgesic administration generally increased, as did the use of propofol. Crown
BACKGROUND:Pain is a common stressor for ICU patients, necessitating routine assessment. For patients who are unable to communicate, self-report tools are unsuitable, and the use of an observational tool is required to assess pain appropriately. The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is the most reliable tool currently available to assess pain in these patients. We investigated whether the implementation of the CPOT in one Australian ICU could increase frequency of appropriate pain assessments, and if this would affect the administration of analgesia and sedation. METHODS: In this before and after study, we first performed a retrospective chart audit on 441 adult ICU patient charts, over 49 days. Data collected included frequency and type of pain assessments, sedation and analgesia administered, communication and CAM-ICU status, and bedside nurse-perceived pain. During the implementation phase, new policy and guideline documents were released, and ICU charts were redesigned to incorporate the CPOT. All nursing staff attended an education session on pain assessment and correct use of the CPOT. The chart audit was repeated, capturing 344 charts over 43 days. RESULTS: Mean total assessments in 24 hours increased from 7.2 to 7.9 for communicative, 3.0 to 8.9 for non-communicative, and 5.1 to 9.1 for transitioning patients. For non-communicative patients there was a significant increase in observational assessments including the CPOT (1.7 to 8.3), and a decrease in inappropriate use of self-report tools (1.3 to 0.2). We also observed significant increases in administration of paracetamol, opiates, propofol, patient-controlled analgesia, modified-release opiates, and neuropathic pain agents. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CPOT using standardised education and resources led to increased frequency of pain assessment, particularly for non-communicative patients. Appropriate observational assessments were also more frequently used for these patients. Analgesic administration generally increased, as did the use of propofol. Crown
Authors: María Acevedo-Nuevo; María Teresa González-Gil; María Concepción Martin-Arribas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 3.390