Background Regular pain assessment can lead to decreased incidence of pain and shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and stays in the intensive care unit. Objectives To document knowledge and perceptions of pain assessment and management practices among Canadian intensive care unit nurses. Methods A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 3753 intensive care unit nurses identified through the 12 Canadian provincial/territorial nursing associations responsible for professional regulation. Results A total of 842 nurses (24%) responded, and 802 surveys could be evaluated. Nurses were significantly less likely (P < .001) to use a pain assessment tool for patients unable to communicate (267 nurses, 33%) than for patients able to self-report (712 nurses, 89%). Significantly fewer respondents (P < .001) rated behavioral pain assessment tools as moderately to extremely important (595 nurses, 74%) compared with selfreport tools (703 nurses, 88%). Routine (>50% of the time) discussion of pain scores during nursing handover was reported by 492 nurses (61%), and targeting of analgesia to a pain score or other assessment parameters by physicians by 333 nurses (42%). Few nurses (n = 235; 29%) were aware of professional society guidelines for pain assessment and management. Routine use of a behavioral pain tool was associated with awareness of published guidelines (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.7) and clinical availability of the tool (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3). Conclusions A substantial proportion of intensive care unit nurses did not use pain assessment tools for patients unable to communicate and were unaware of pain management guidelines published by professional societies.

IntroductionPhysical restraint (PR) use in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with higher rates of self-extubation and prolonged ICU length of stay. Our objectives were to describe patterns and predictors of PR use.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of analgosedation, antipsychotic, neuromuscular blocker, and PR practices in 51 Canadian ICUs. Data were collected prospectively for all mechanically ventilated adults admitted during a two-week period. We tested for patient, treatment, and hospital characteristics that were associated with PR use and number of days of use, using logistic and Poisson regression respectively.ResultsPR was used on 374 out of 711 (53%) patients, for a mean number of 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 4.0) days. Treatment characteristics associated with PR were higher daily benzodiazepine dose (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11), higher daily opioid dose (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06), antipsychotic drugs (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48), agitation (Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) >4) (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 9.29), and sedation administration method (continuous and bolus versus bolus only) (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48). Hospital characteristics associated with PR indicated patients were less likely to be restrained in ICUs from university-affiliated hospitals (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). Mainly treatment characteristics were associated with more days of PR, including: higher daily benzodiazepine dose (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), daily sedation interruption (IRR 3.44, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.10), antipsychotic drugs (IRR 15.67, 95% CI 6.62 to 37.12), SAS <3 (IRR 2.62, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.35), and any adverse event including accidental device removal (IRR 8.27, 95% CI 2.07 to 33.08). Patient characteristics (age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, admission category, prior substance abuse, prior psychotropic medication, pre-existing psychiatric condition or dementia) were not associated with PR use or number of days used.ConclusionsPR was used in half of the patients in these 51 ICUs. Treatment characteristics predominantly predicted PR use, as opposed to patient or hospital/ICU characteristics. Use of sedative, analgesic, and antipsychotic drugs, agitation, heavy sedation, and occurrence of an adverse event predicted PR use or number of days used.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract