ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to explore the experiences, beliefs and perceptions of intensive care unit (ICU) nurses on the management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) in critically ill patients.DesignA qualitative descriptive study.SettingThis study took place in a community hospital ICU located in a medium size Canadian city.ParticipantsPurposeful sampling was conducted. Participants included full-time nurses working in the ICU. Forty-six ICU nurses participated.MethodsA total of five focus group sessions were held to collect data. There were one to three separate groups in each focus group session, with no more than seven participants in each group. There were 10 separate groups in total. A semistructured question guide was used. Thematic analysis method was adopted to analyse the data, and to search for emergent themes and patterns.ResultsThree main themes emerged: (1) the professional perspectives on patient wakefulness state, (2) the professional perspectives on PAD management of critically ill patients and (3) the factors impacting PAD management. Nurses have different opinions on the optimal level of patient sedation and felt that many factors, including environmental, healthcare teams, patients and family members, can influence PAD management. This potentially leads to inconsistent PAD management in critically ill patients. The nurses also believed that PAD management requires a multidisciplinary approach including healthcare teams and patients’ families.ConclusionsMany external and internal factors contribute to the complexity of PAD management including the attitudes of nursing staff towards PAD. The themes emerged from this study suggested the need of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary quality improvement programme to optimise the management of PAD in the ICU.

BackgroundDelirium is a common manifestation in the intensive care unit (ICU) that is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Guidelines suggested appropriate management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) is crucial in improving patient outcomes. However, the practice of PAD assessment and management in community hospitals is unclear and the mechanisms contributing to the potential care gap are unknown.ObjectivesThis quality improvement initiative aimed to review the practice of PAD assessment and management in a community medical-surgical ICU (MSICU) and to explore the community MSICU nurses’ perceived comfort and satisfaction with PAD management in order to understand the mechanisms of the observed care gap and to inform subsequent quality improvement interventions.MethodsWe prospectively collected basic demographic data, clinical information and daily data on PAD process measures including PAD assessment and target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score ordered by intensivists on all patients admitted to a community MSICU for >24 hours over a 20-week period. All ICU nurses in the same community MSICU were invited to participate in an anonymous survey.ResultsWe collected data on a total of 1101 patient-days (PD). 653 PD (59%), 861 PD (78%) and 439 PD (39%) had PAD assessment performed, respectively. Target RASS was ordered by the intensivists on 515 PD (47%). Our nurse survey revealed that 88%, 85% and 41% of nurses were comfortable with PAD assessment, respectively.ConclusionsDelirium assessment was not routinely performed. This is partly explained by the discomfort nurses felt towards conducting delirium assessment. Our results suggested that improvement in nurse comfort with delirium assessment and management is needed in the community MSICU setting.

BackgroundIn 2013, the Society of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Immobility and sleep were subsequently added in 2018. Despite the well-established advantages of implementing these guidelines, adoption and adherence remain suboptimal. This is especially true in community settings, where PAD assessment is performed less often, and the implementation of PAD guidelines has not yet been studied. The purpose of this prospective interventional study is to evaluate the effect of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention on PAD assessment in a community intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsAll patients admitted to our community ICU for over 24 hours were included. A 20-week baseline audit was performed, followed by the intervention, and a 20-week postintervention audit. The intervention consisted of a survey, focus groups and education sessions. Primary outcomes included rates of daily PAD assessment using validated tools.ResultsThere were improvements in the number of patients with at least one assessment per day of pain (67.5% vs 59.3%, p=0.04), agitation (93.1% vs 78.7%, p<0.001) and delirium (54.2% vs 39.4%, p<0.001), and the number of patients with target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale ordered (63.1% vs 46.8%, p=0.002). There was a decrease in the rate of physical restraint use (10.0% vs 30.9%, p<0.001) and no change in self-extubation rate (0.9% vs 2.5%, p=0.2).ConclusionThe implementation of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention has the potential to improve rates of PAD assessment in community ICUs. Screening rates in our ICU remain suboptimal despite these improvements. We plan to implement multidisciplinary interventions targeting physicians, nurses and families to close the observed care gap.

Background The objective of this study was to provide a synthesis of the interventions designed to reduce medication errors in anesthetized patients. Methods We electronically searched major databases using index and free-text keywords related to anesthesia and medication errors. We included cohort studies exploring interventions to reduce anesthetic medication errors in both adult and pediatric patients. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results One thousand five-hundred and fifty-eight titles or abstracts were screened, and 56 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility; eight studies were included in the final analysis. Case reports and retrospective studies were excluded. The quality of most studies (n = 6) was graded as ''low''. There were three categories of interventions: I) multimodal interventions (6 studies, n = 900,170

No abstract