Linlin Zhang1, Jian-Xin Zhou2, Kai Chen1, Yan-Lin Yang1, Hong-Liang Li1, Dan Xiao3, Yang Wang4. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 119 South Fourth Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 119 South Fourth Ring West Road, Fengtai District, Beijing, 100070, China. zhoujx.cn@icloud.com. 3. China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100070, China. 4. Medical Research & Biometrics Center, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100037, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance. METHODS: We sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ≥24 h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24 h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. RESULTS: We enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p = 0.003 and < 0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale. CONCLUSIONS: The actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.
BACKGROUND: Pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance. METHODS: We sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ≥24 h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24 h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. RESULTS: We enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p = 0.003 and < 0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale. CONCLUSIONS: The actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.
Authors: Brenda Truman Pun; Sharon M Gordon; Josh F Peterson; Ayumi K Shintani; James C Jackson; Julie Foss; Sharon D Harding; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Guenther Herzer; Claudia Mirth; Udo M Illievich; Wolfgang G Voelckel; Helmut Trimmel Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Gary D Owen; Joanna L Stollings; Shayan Rakhit; Li Wang; Chang Yu; Morgan A Hosay; James W Stewart; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Oscar Peñuelas; Andres Esteban; Antonio R Anzueto; Konstantinos Raymondos; Fernando Rios; Arnaud W Thille; Marco González; Bin Du; Salvatore M Maggiore; Dimitrios Matamis; Fekri Abroug; Pravin Amin; Amine Ali Zeggwagh; Mayur B Patel Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2019-04-24
Authors: Mayur B Patel; Josef Bednarik; Patricia Lee; Yahya Shehabi; Jorge I Salluh; Arjen J Slooter; Kate E Klein; Yoanna Skrobik; Alessandro Morandi; Peter E Spronk; Andrew M Naidech; Brenda T Pun; Fernando A Bozza; Annachiara Marra; Sayona John; Pratik P Pandharipande; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Alawi Luetz; Felix Balzer; Finn M Radtke; Christina Jones; Giuseppe Citerio; Bernhard Walder; Bjoern Weiss; Klaus-Dieter Wernecke; Claudia Spies Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240