The main remit of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology (ESPA) Pain Committee is to improve the quality of pain management in children. The ESPA Pain Management Ladder is a clinical practice advisory based upon expert consensus to help to ensure a basic standard of perioperative pain management for all children. Further steps are suggested to improve pain management once a basic standard has been achieved. The guidance is grouped by the type of surgical procedure and layered to suggest basic, intermediate, and advanced pain management methods. The committee members are aware that there are marked differences in financial and personal resources in different institutions and countries and also considerable variations in the availability of analgesic drugs across Europe. We recommend that the guidance should be used as a framework to guide best practice.

The growing number of medical procedures performed in children that require cooperation of patients, lack of movement, anxiolysis or/and analgesia triggers the increased need for procedural sedation. This document presents the consensus statement of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology about the principles connected with the safe management of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) by anaesthesiologists for elective procedures in children. It does not aim to provide a legal statement on how and by whom PSA should be performed. The document highlights that any staff taking part in sedation of children must be appropriately trained with the required competencies and must be able to demonstrate regularly that they have maintained their knowledge, skills and clinical experience. The main goal of creating this document was to reflect the opinions of the community of the paediatric anaesthesiologists in Europe regarding how PSA for paediatric patients should be organized to make it safe. K E Y W O R D Sanalgesia, children, diagnostic elective procedure, procedural sedation, safety 584 | ZIELINSKA Et AL.

Background Management and monitoring of pain and sedation to reduce discomfort as well as side effects, such as over- and under-sedation, withdrawal syndrome and delirium, is an integral part of pediatric intensive care practice. However, the current state of management and monitoring of analgosedation across European pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) remains unknown. The aim of this survey was to describe current practices across European PICUs regarding the management and monitoring of pain and sedation. Methods An online survey was distributed among 357 European PICUs assessing demographic features, drug choices and dosing, as well as usage of instruments for monitoring pain and sedation. We also compared low- and high-volume PICUs practices. Responses were collected from January to April 2021. Results A total of 215 (60% response rate) PICUs from 27 European countries responded. Seventy-one percent of PICUs stated to use protocols for analgosedation management, more frequently in high-volume PICUs (77% vs 63%, p = 0.028). First-choice drug combination was an opioid with a benzodiazepine, namely fentanyl (51%) and midazolam (71%) being the preferred drugs. The starting doses differed between PICUs from 0.1 to 5 mcg/kg/h for fentanyl, and 0.01 to 0.5 mg/kg/h for midazolam. Daily assessment and documentation for pain (81%) and sedation (87%) was reported by most of the PICUs, using the preferred validated FLACC scale (54%) and the COMFORT Behavioural scale (48%), respectively. Both analgesia and sedation were mainly monitored by nurses (92% and 84%, respectively). Eighty-six percent of the responding PICUs stated to use neuromuscular blocking agents in some scenarios. Monitoring of paralysed patients was preferably done by observation of vital signs with electronic devices support. Conclusions This survey provides an overview of current analgosedation practices among European PICUs. Drugs of choice, dosing and assessment strategies were shown to differ widely. Further research and development of evidence-based guidelines for optimal drug dosing and analgosedation assessment are needed.

Our survey confirmed the closure of 9 pain clinics during the last 5 years due to lack of personnel and time. Pain clinics appear to provide the simplest economic saving potential. This development is a major concern. Although running a pain clinic seems to be expensive at the first sight, it reduces pain, sick leave, complications, and potential legal issues against health care centers, while simultaneously increasing the hospital's competitiveness. Our results show that 74% of Austrian chronic pain patients do not have access to an interdisciplinary pain clinic. Because of plans to further economize resources, Austria may lose its ability to provide state-of-the-art pain therapy and management.