These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

The experience of symptoms, minor to severe, prompts millions of patients to visit their healthcare providers each year. Symptoms not only create distress, but also disrupt social functioning. The management of symptoms and their resulting outcomes often become the responsibility of the patient and his or her family members. Healthcare providers have difficulty developing symptom management strategies that can be applied across acute and home-care settings because few models of symptom management have been tested empirically. To date, the majority of research on symptoms was directed toward studying a single symptom, such as pain or fatigue, or toward evaluating associated symptoms, such as depression and sleep disturbance. While this approach has advanced our understanding of some symptoms, we offer a generic symptom management model to provide direction for selecting clinical interventions, informing research, and bridging an array of symptoms associated with a variety of diseases and conditions. Finally, a broadly-based symptom management model allows the integration of science from other fields.

• Background Little research has been conducted to validate pain assessment tools in critical care, especially for patients who cannot communicate verbally. • Objective To validate the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. • Methods A total of 105 cardiac surgery patients in the intensive care unit, recruited in a cardiology health center in Quebec, Canada, participated in the study. Following surgery, 33 of the 105 were evaluated while unconscious and intubated and 99 while conscious and intubated; all 105 were evaluated after extubation. For each of the 3 testing periods, patients were evaluated by using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool at rest, during a nociceptive procedure (positioning), and 20 minutes after the procedure, for a total of 9 assessments. Each patient’s self-report of pain was obtained while the patient was conscious and intubated and after extubation. • Results The reliability and validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool were acceptable. Interrater reliability was supported by moderate to high weighted κ coefficients. For criterion validity, significant associations were found between the patients’ self-reports of pain and the scores on the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. Discriminant validity was supported by higher scores during positioning (a nociceptive procedure) versus at rest. • Conclusions The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool showed that no matter their level of consciousness, critically ill adult patients react to a noxious stimulus by expressing different behaviors that may be associated with pain. Therefore, the tool could be used to assess the effect of various measures for the management of pain.