Enhancing European Management of Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium: A Multinational, Prospective, Interventional Before-After Trial

Author:

Paul NicolasORCID,Grunow Julius J.ORCID,Rosenthal MaxORCID,Spies Claudia D.ORCID,Page Valerie J.ORCID,Hanison JamesORCID,Patel BrijeshORCID,Rosenberg Alex,von Haken RebeccaORCID,Pietsch UrsORCID,Schrag Claudia,Waydhas ChristianORCID,Schellongowski PeterORCID,Lobmeyr Elisabeth,Sander MichaelORCID,Piper Sophie K.ORCID,Conway DanielORCID,Totzeck AndreasORCID,Weiss BjörnORCID

Abstract

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of a structured educational intervention on the implementation of guideline-recommended pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) assessment. Methods This was a prospective, multinational, interventional before-after trial conducted at 12 intensive care units from 10 centers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. Intensive care units underwent a 6-week structured educational program, comprising online lectures, instructional videos, educational handouts, and bedside teaching. Patient-level PAD assessment data were collected in three 1-day point-prevalence assessments before (T1), 6 weeks after (T2), and 1 year after (T3) the educational program. Results A total of 430 patients were included. The rate of patients who received all three PAD assessments changed from 55% (107/195) at T1 to 53% (68/129) at T2, but increased to 73% (77/106) at T3 (p = 0.003). The delirium screening rate increased from 64% (124/195) at T1 to 65% (84/129) at T2 and 77% (82/106) at T3 (p = 0.041). The pain assessment rate increased from 87% (170/195) at T1 to 92% (119/129) at T2 and 98% (104/106) at T3 (p = 0.005). The rate of sedation assessment showed no signficiant change. The proportion of patients who received nonpharmacological delirium prevention measures increased from 58% (114/195) at T1 to 80% (103/129) at T2 and 91% (96/106) at T3 (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed that at T3, patients were more likely to receive a delirium assessment (odds ratio [OR] 2.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.206–3.790; p = 0.009), sedation assessment (OR 4.131, 95% CI 1.372–12.438; p = 0.012), or all three PAD assessments (OR 2.295, 95% CI 1.349–3.903; p = 0.002) compared with T1. Conclusions In routine care, many patients were not assessed for PAD. Assessment rates increased significantly 1 year after the intervention. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03553719.

Funder

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

NIHR Clinical Research Network

Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3