Objective: To review evidence for intensive care unit (ICU) sleep improvement bundle use, identify preferred sleep bundle components and implementation strategies, and highlight the role for pharmacists in developing and evaluating bundle efforts. Data Sources: Multiple databases were searched from January 1, 1990, to September 1, 2021, using the MeSH terms sleep, intensive care or critical care, protocol or bundle to identify comparative studies evaluating ICU sleep bundle implementation. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias evaluation were conducted in tandem. The ICU quality improvement literature and Institute for Healthcare Improvement bundle improvement guidance were also reviewed to identify recommended strategies for successful sleep bundle use. Data Synthesis: Nine studies (3 randomized, 1 quasi-experimental, 5 before-and-after) were identified. Bundle elements varied and were primarily focused on nonpharmacological interventions designed to be performed during either the day or night; only 2 studies included a medication-based strategy. Five studies were associated with reduced delirium; 2 studies were associated with improved total sleep time and 2 with improved patient-perceived sleep. Pharmacists were involved directly in 4 studies. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Sleep improvement bundles are recommended for use in all critically ill adults; specific bundle elements and ICU team member roles should be individualized at the institution/ICU level. Pharmacists can help lead bundle development efforts and routinely deliver key elements. Conclusions: Pharmacists can play an important role in the development and implementation of ICU sleep bundles. Further research regarding the relative benefit of individual bundle elements on relevant patient outcomes is needed.

We compared ICU nonopioid analgesic use, opioid use, and pain before and after Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep guideline publication at one academic center among critically ill adults receiving an opioid infusion and greater than or equal to 24 hours of mechanical ventilation after major surgery. The 2017 ( n = 77) and 2019 ( n = 57) groups were similar at baseline. The 2019 (vs 2017) patients were more likely to receive scheduled IV/oral acetaminophen (84% vs 69%; p = 0.05), less likely to receive a lidocaine patch (33% vs 50%; p = 0.05), and just as likely to receive ketamine (4% vs 3%; p = 1.0), an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (7% vs 3%; p = 0.26), or gabapentin/pregabalin (16% vs 9%; p = 0.23). Daily average opioid exposure (in IV morphine milligram equivalent) was not different (70 [42–99] [2017] vs 78 mg [49–109 mg]; p = 0.94). The 2019 (vs 2017) group spent more ICU days with severe pain ( p = 0.04). At our center, Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep guideline publication had little effect on nonopioid analgesic or opioid prescribing practices in critically ill surgical adults.