Dataset Information

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units.

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?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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

SUBMITTER: Chen K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7905610 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units.

Chen Kai K Yang Yan-Lin YL Li Hong-Liang HL Xiao Dan D Wang Yang Y Zhang Linlin L Zhou Jian-Xin JX

BMC anesthesiology 20210225 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Associatio ...[more]

PMID: 33627067

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:BackgroundSedation is used frequently for patients in intensive care units who require mechanical ventilation, but oversedation is one of the main side effects. Different strategies have been proposed to prevent oversedation. The extent to which these strategies have been adopted by intensivists is unknown.MethodsWe developed a six-section questionnaire that covered the drugs used, modalities of drug administration, use of sedation scales and procedural pain scales, use of written local procedures, and targeted objectives of consciousness. In November 2011, the questionnaire was sent to 1,078 intensivists identified from the French ICU Society (SRLF) database.ResultsThe questionnaire was returned by 195 intensivists (response rate 18.1%), representing 135 of the 282 ICUs (47.8%) listed in the French ICU society (SRLF) database. The analysis showed that midazolam and sufentanil are the most frequently used hypnotics and opioids, respectively, administered in continuous intravenous (IV) infusions. IV boluses of hypnotics without subsequent continuous IV infusion are used occasionally (in <25% of patients) by 65% of intensivists. Anxiolytic benzodiazepines (e.g., clorazepam, alprazolam), hydroxyzine, and typical neuroleptics, via either an enteral or IV route, are used occasionally by two thirds of respondents. The existence of a written, local sedation management procedure in the ICU is reported by 55% of respondents, 54% of whom declare that they use it routinely. Written local sedation procedures mainly rely on titration of continuous IV hypnotics (90% of the sedation procedures); less frequently, sedation procedures describe alternative approaches to prevent oversedation, including daily interruption of continuous IV hypnotic infusion, hypnotic boluses with no subsequent continuous IV infusion, or the use of nonhypnotic drugs. Among the responding intensivists, 98% consider eye opening, either spontaneously or after light physical stimulation, a reasonable target consciousness level in patients with no severe respiratory failure or intracranial hypertension.ConclusionsDespite a low individual response rate, the respondents to our survey represent almost half of the ICUs in the French SRLF database. The presence of a written local sedation procedure, a cornerstone of preventing oversedation, is reported by only half of respondents; when present, it is used in for a limited number of patients. Sedation procedures mainly rely on titration of continuous IV hypnotics, but other strategies to limit oversedation also are included in sedation procedures. French intensivists no longer consider severely altered consciousness a sedation objective for most patients.

Project description:ObjectivesDelirium is frequently missed in older emergency department (ED) patients. Brief (<2 minutes) delirium assessments have been validated for the ED, but some ED health care providers may consider them to be cumbersome. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is an observational scale that quantifies level of consciousness and takes less than 10 seconds to perform. The authors sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the RASS for delirium in older ED patients.MethodsThis was a preplanned analysis of a prospective observational study designed to validate brief delirium assessments for the ED. The study was conducted at an academic ED and enrolled patients who were 65 years or older. Patients who were non-English-speaking, deaf, blind, comatose or had end-stage dementia were excluded. A research assistant (RA) and a physician performed the RASS at the time of enrollment. Within 3 hours, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist performed his or her comprehensive reference standard assessment for delirium using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsOf 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the consult-liaison psychiatrist reference rater. When performed by the RA, a RASS other than 0 (RASS > 0 or < 0) was 84.0% sensitive (95% CI = 73.8% to 94.2%) and 87.6% specific (95% CI = 84.2% to 91.1%) for delirium. When performed by physician, a RASS other than 0 was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI = 71.4% to 92.6%) and 85.1% specific (95% CI = 81.4% to 88.8%) for delirium. Using a RASS > +1 or < -1 as the cutoff, the specificity improved to approximately 99% for both raters at the expense of sensitivity; the sensitivities were 22.0% (95% CI = 10.5% to 33.5%) and 16.0% (95% CI = 5.8% to 25.2%) in the RAs and physician raters, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 19.6 (95% CI = 6.5 to 59.1) when performed by the RA and 57.0 (95% CI = 7.3 to 445.9) when performed by the physician, indicating that a RASS > +1 or < -1 strongly increased the likelihood of delirium. The weighted kappa was 0.63, indicating moderate interobserver reliability.ConclusionsIn older ED patients, a RASS other than 0 has very good sensitivity and specificity for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. A RASS > +1 or < -1 is nearly diagnostic for delirium, given the very high positive likelihood ratio.

Project description:ObjectivesDelirium disproportionately affects patients with dementia and is associated with adverse outcomes. The diagnosis of delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD), however, can be challenging due to several factors, including the absence of caregivers or the severity of preexisting cognitive impairment. Altered level of consciousness has been advocated as a possible useful indicator of delirium in this population. Here we evaluated the performance of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and the modified-RASS (m-RASS), an ultra-brief measure of the level of consciousness, in the diagnosis of DSD.DesignMulticenter prospective observational study. RASS and m-RASS results were analyzed together, labeled RASS/m-RASS.SettingAcute geriatric wards, in-hospital rehabilitation, emergency department.ParticipantsPatients 65 years and older with dementia.MeasurementsDelirium was diagnosed with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) or with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised (DRS-R-98), or with the 4 A's Test (4AT). Dementia was detected with the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale, the Short Form-Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) or via the clinical records.ResultsOf the 645 patients included, 376 (58%) had delirium. According to the instrument used to evaluate delirium, the prevalence was 66% with the 4AT, 23% with the DSM, and 100% with the DRS-R-98. Overall a RASS/m-RASS score other than 0 was 70.5% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.9%-75.1%) and 84.8% (CI 80.5%-89.1%) specific for DSD. Using a RASS/m-RASS value greater than +1 or less than -1 as a cutoff, the sensitivity was 30.6% (CI 25.9%-35.2%) and the specificity was 95.5% (CI 93.1%-98.0%). The sensitivity and the specificity did not greatly vary according to the method of delirium diagnosis and the dementia ascertainment, although the specificity was slightly higher when the DSM and the IQCODE were used.ConclusionIn older patients admitted to different clinical settings, the RASS and m-RASS analyzed as a single group had moderate sensitivity and very high specificity for the detection of DSD. Level of consciousness is therefore a valuable clinical indicator that should form part of delirium screening strategies, although for higher sensitivity other methods of assessment should be used.

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a brain dysfunction syndrome, which children have a higher incidence. At present, there have been more and more studies and reports on delirium in paediatric intensive care unit, but there are some differences in the risk factor results among different studies. To better manage delirium, this study was performed.ObjectiveTo integrate and clarify the risk factors for delirium in paediatric intensive care unit.MethodsCNKI, CBMdisc, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, JBI and PsycInfo were searched for relevant literature. The study subjects were patients in PICU and literature was included according to the PICOS principle. Literature screening and risk of bias assessment were mainly completed by two researchers, and RevMan 5.3 software and Stata software were used for data analysis. The GRADE systerm was used to assess the quality of evidence.ResultsA total of 10 studies were included, all in English, involving 4343 children. Within the GRADE system, 4 indicators were scored A, 1 indicators were scored B, and 3 indicators were scored C regarding evidence levels. Three studies analysed the influence of developmental delay on the occurrence of delirium in PICU, total sample size of which was 1823, and the results showed that the combined effect was statistically significant [OR = 3.34, 95%CI(2.46-4.53), Z = 7.75, P<0.001]; Five studies analysed the effects of mechanical ventilation on the occurrence of delirium in PICU, sample size of which was 1562, and the results showed that the combined effect was statistically significant [OR = 4.11, 95%CI(3.13-5.40), Z = 10.16, P<0.001]; Two studies analysed the effects of benzodiazepines on children developing delirium, sample size of which was 1635, and the results showed that the combined effect was statistically significant [OR = 5.05, 95%CI(3.65-6.97), Z = 9.83, P<0.001]; Two studies analysed the effects of anticholinergic drug use on children developing delirium in PICU, sample size of which was 1703, and the results suggested the combined effect was statistically significant [OR = 5.04, 95%CI (3.62-7.00), Z = 9.63, P<0.001]; Two studies compared the same age period, sample size of which was 1724 and the results showed that children 2-5 years old has a 48% incidence rate of delirium relative to children younger than 2 years old, and the combined effect was statistically significant [OR = 0.48, 95%CI(0.25-0.92), Z = 2.22, P = 0.030], children 5-13 years old has a 39% incidence rate of delirium relative to children younger than 2 years old, and the combined effect was statistically significant [OR = 0.39, 95%CI(0.26-0.59), Z = 4.43, P<0.001]. Two studies analysed the effects of PICU LOS on children developing delirium and the combined effect of PICU LOS on the occurrence of delirium in children in PICU was statistically significant [OR = 1.10, 95%CI(1.05-1.15), Z = 4.07, P<0.001].ConclusionDevelopmental delay, mechanical ventilation, benzodiazepine use, anticholinergic use, age and PICU length of stay are independent risk factors for delirium in children in PICU. However, only a few articles were included in this study, which may lead to a certain bias and affect the analysing results. More large-sample, multicentre studies should be conducted to further explore and clarify the independent influencing factors of delirium in children in PICU and to provide guidance for clinical practice.

Dataset Information

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units.

Background

Methods

Results

Trial registration

Publications

A gap existed between physicians' perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets