2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.enfie.2018.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
13
1
5

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
5
13
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, it was not until 2010 that one of the first studies on PR use in the critical-patient setting was published, the "Physical Restraint use in Intensive Care units across Europe" (PRICE) study, a pioneering outline of the situation which described the prevalence of 0% to 100% across Europe [1]. Since then, more data on the critical-patient setting have been published: prevalence of PR use stands at around 0% in the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries; in contrast, 23% of patients admitted to an ICU in Holland had PR, as did 76% of patients with mechanical ventilation in Canada; in Italy, 100% of patients studied had some form of restraint; and while the range fluctuated from 13% to 50% in the USA, it was in the region of 45-50% in Switzerland and France, and 48.4% in South Africa; finally, a prevalence of 15% to 43.9% was reported in Spain [1,3,17,21,[23][24][25]27,[29][30][31][32]. At all events, regardless of the figures, the wide variability described seems to reflect a degree of complexity in the factors determining use/non-use, which calls for complex in-depth analysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Indeed, it was not until 2010 that one of the first studies on PR use in the critical-patient setting was published, the "Physical Restraint use in Intensive Care units across Europe" (PRICE) study, a pioneering outline of the situation which described the prevalence of 0% to 100% across Europe [1]. Since then, more data on the critical-patient setting have been published: prevalence of PR use stands at around 0% in the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries; in contrast, 23% of patients admitted to an ICU in Holland had PR, as did 76% of patients with mechanical ventilation in Canada; in Italy, 100% of patients studied had some form of restraint; and while the range fluctuated from 13% to 50% in the USA, it was in the region of 45-50% in Switzerland and France, and 48.4% in South Africa; finally, a prevalence of 15% to 43.9% was reported in Spain [1,3,17,21,[23][24][25]27,[29][30][31][32]. At all events, regardless of the figures, the wide variability described seems to reflect a degree of complexity in the factors determining use/non-use, which calls for complex in-depth analysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In the case of critical patients, concern in national and international spheres about the use of PRs is a very recent phenomenon. There are hardly any studies on the topic or reports of positions taken by intensive care units (ICU), and the difference between practice and guidelines seems to be even greater than in other settings; some authors even regard ICU as the "last frontier" of PR use [1,2,17,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Indeed, it was not until 2010 that one of the first studies on PR use in the critical-patient setting was published, the "Physical Restraint use in Intensive Care units across Europe" (PRICE) study, a pioneering outline of the situation which described the prevalence of 0% to 100% across Europe [1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En este sentido, se ponen de manifiesto los distintos paquetes de medidas creados para garantizar unos cuidados adecuados en el delirio (95,96,(297)(298)(299)(300) , dolor (94,(300)(301)(302) y sueño (303)(304)(305)(306) . Para poder extraer un paralelismo de estos discursos, con la evidencia científica contamos con el estudio ASCyD, descriptivo transversal realizado en 158 UCI para valorar la analgesia, sedación, dolor y delirio en el ámbito nacional, en el cual "tenían dolor el 80 % de los pacientes agitados, el 46,8 % de los considerados con sedación adecuada y el 22,6 % de pacientes con sedación profunda" (307) . El dolor también es una fuente de preocupación para las sociedades científicas, así Devlin et al (94) , en su guía clínica práctica determinaron como un factor importante evaluar el dolor en todas las UCI aplicando las medidas farmacológicas y no farmacológicas, ya que su no valoración influía en la aparición de eventos adversos como agitación, insomnio y delirio.…”
Section: C) áMbito De La Gestiónunclassified
“…La prevención es un elemento fundamental, sobre todo por sus posteriores consecuencias como es el caso del síndrome post-UCI(299,300,(311)(312)(313)(314) o el uso de contenciones mecánicas(165,198,315) . A pesar de esta preocupación, Arias-Rivera et al(307) indicaron que el uso de herramientas para la valoración del delirio no llega a aplicarse ni en el 25 % de las UCI españolas. Este estudio indicaba que el nivel de delirio de las unidades es menor que el de otros estudios similares, pudiendo asociarse a un menor porcentaje de pacientes sin dolor o dolor moderado.…”
unclassified
See 1 more Smart Citation