Dataset Information

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in a Canadian community intensive care unit: a quality improvement study protocol.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Pain and agitation are closely linked to the development of delirium, which affects 60%-87% of critically ill patients. Delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Clinical guidelines that suggest routine assessment, treatment and prevention of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial to improving patient outcomes. However, the adoption of and adherence to PAD guidelines remain suboptimal, especially in community hospitals. The aim of this quality improvement study is to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD management in a Canadian community intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS:This is a quality improvement, uncontrolled, before-and-after study of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention targeting nurses (educational modules, visual reminders), family members (interviews, educational pamphlets and an educational video), physicians (multidisciplinary round script) and the multidisciplinary team as a whole (delirium poster). We will collect data every day for 6 weeks before implementing the intervention. Data collection will include clinical information and information on process of care. We will then implement the intervention. Four weeks after, we will collect data daily for 6 weeks to evaluate the effect of the intervention. On the basis of the volume of the ICU, we expect to enroll approximately 280 patients. We have obtained local ethics approval from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB 18-040-C). INTERPRETATION:The results of this quality improvement study will provide information on adherence to PAD guidelines in a Canadian community ICU setting. They will also supply information on the feasibility of implementing multifaceted and multidisciplinary PAD interventions in community ICUs.

SUBMITTER: Penuela MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6597341 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in a Canadian community intensive care unit: a quality improvement study protocol.

Penuela Mercedes Camargo MC Law Madelyn M Chung Han-Oh HO Faught Brent E BE Tsang Jennifer L Y JLY

CMAJ open 20190401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Pain and agitation are closely linked to the development of delirium, which affects 60%-87% of critically ill patients. Delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Clinical guidelines that suggest routine assessment, treatment and prevention of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial to improving patient outcomes. However, the adoption of and adherence to PAD guidelines remain suboptimal, especially in community hospitals. The aim of this quality impro ...[more]

PMID: 31243059

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe management of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is beneficial for patients and makes it widely applied in clinical practice. Previous studies showed that the clinical practice of PAD in ICU was improving; yet relatively little information is available in China. This study aimed to investigate the practice of PAD in ICUs in China.MethodsA multicenter, nationwide survey was conducted using a clinician-directed questionnaire from September 19 to December 18, 2016. The questionnaire focused on the assessment and management of PAD by the clinicians in ICUs. The practice of PAD was compared among the four regions of China (North, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest). The data were expressed as percentage and frequency. The Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and line-row Chi-square test were used.ResultsOf the 1011 valid questionnaire forms, the response rate was 80.37%. The clinicians came from 704 hospitals across 158 cities of China. The rate of PAD assessment was 75.77%, 90.21%, and 66.77%, respectively. The rates of PAD scores were 45.8%, 68.94%, and 34.03%, respectively. The visual analog scale, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, and confusion assessment method for the ICU were the first choices of scales for PAD assessment. Fentanyl, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine were the first choices of agents for analgesic, sedation, and delirium treatment. While choosing analgesics and sedatives, the clinicians put the pharmacological characteristics of drugs in the first place (66.07% and 76.36%). Daily interruption for sedation was carried out by 67.26% clinicians. Most of the clinicians (87.24%) used analgesics while using sedatives. Of the 738 (73%) clinicians titrating the sedatives on the basis of the proposed target sedation level, 268 (26.61%) clinicians just depended on their clinical experience. Totally, 519 (51.34%) clinicians never used other nondrug strategies for PAD. The working time of clinicians was an important factor in the management of analgesia and sedation rather than their titles and educational background. The ratios of pain score and sedation score in the Southwest China were the highest and the North China were the lowest. The ratios of delirium assessment and score were the same in the four regions of China. Moreover, the first choices of scales for PAD in the four regions were the same. However, the top three choices of agents in PAD treatment in the four regions were not the same.ConclusionsThe practice of PAD in China follows the international guidelines; however, the pain assessment should be improved. The PAD practice is a little different across the four regions of China; however, the trend is consistent.Trial registrationThe study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (No. ChiCTR-OOC-16009014, www.chictr. org.cn/index.aspx.).

Project description:BackgroundPain, 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. METHODS:This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. RESULTS:In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of -?2.73 (p?<?0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n?=?68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. CONCLUSIONS:While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.

Project description:BackgroundThe uptake of evidence-based therapies in the intensive care environment is suboptimal, particularly in limited-resource countries. Checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts may improve compliance with best practice processes of care and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of checklists is unreliable and inconclusive, and the mechanisms are poorly understood. We aim to evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including the use of a checklist and the definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts, can improve the in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Our secondary objectives are to assess the effects of the study intervention on specific processes of care, clinical outcomes, and the safety culture and to determine which factors (the processes of care and/or safety culture) mediate the effect of the study intervention on mortality.Methods/designThis is a cluster randomized trial involving 118 ICUs in Brazil conducted in two phases. In the observational preparatory phase, we collect baseline data on processes of care and clinical outcomes from 60 consecutive patients with lengths of ICU stay longer than 48 h and apply the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to 75% or more of the health care staff in each ICU. In the randomized phase, we assign ICUs to the experimental or control arm and repeat data collection. Experimental arm ICUs receive the multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including a checklist and definition of daily care goals during daily multidisciplinary rounds, clinician prompting, and feedback on rates of adherence to selected care processes. Control arm ICUs maintain usual care. The primary outcome is in-hospital mortality, truncated at 60 days. Secondary outcomes include the rates of adherence to appropriate care processes, rates of other clinical outcomes, and scores on the SAQ domains. Analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle, and the primary outcome is analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression.DiscussionThis is a large scale, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including checklists applied during the multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompting, can improve the adoption of proven therapies and decrease the mortality of critically ill patients. If this study finds that the intervention reduces mortality, it may be widely adopted in intensive care units, even those in limited-resource settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01785966.

Dataset Information

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in a Canadian community intensive care unit: a quality improvement study protocol.

Publications

Impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on pain, agitation and delirium management in a Canadian community intensive care unit: a quality improvement study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets