Sedation, analgesia, and delirium management in Portugal: a survey and point prevalence study.

Maria Carolina Paulino, Isabel Jesus Pereira, Vasco Costa, Aida Neves, Anabela Santos, Carla Margarida Teixeira, Isabel Coimbra, Paula Fernandes, Ricardo Bernardo, Pedro Póvoa, Cristina Granja
{"title":"Sedation, analgesia, and delirium management in Portugal: a survey and point prevalence study.","authors":"Maria Carolina Paulino,&nbsp;Isabel Jesus Pereira,&nbsp;Vasco Costa,&nbsp;Aida Neves,&nbsp;Anabela Santos,&nbsp;Carla Margarida Teixeira,&nbsp;Isabel Coimbra,&nbsp;Paula Fernandes,&nbsp;Ricardo Bernardo,&nbsp;Pedro Póvoa,&nbsp;Cristina Granja","doi":"10.5935/0103-507X.20220020-pt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To establish current Portuguese critical care practices regarding analgesia, sedation, and delirium based on a comparison between the activities reported and daily clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national survey was conducted among physicians invited to report their practice toward analgesia, sedation, and delirium in intensive care units. A point prevalence study was performed to analyze daily practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 117 physicians answered the survey, and 192 patients were included in the point prevalence study. Survey and point prevalence studies reflect a high sedation assessment (92%; 88.5%), with the Richmond Agitated Sedation Scale being the most reported and used scale (41.7%; 58.2%) and propofol being the most reported and used medication (91.4%; 58.6%). Midazolam prescribing was reported by 68.4% of responders, but a point prevalence study revealed a use of 27.6%.Although 46.4% of responders reported oversedation, this was actually documented in 32% of the patients. The survey reports the daily assessment of pain (92%) using standardized scales (71%). The same was identified in the point prevalence study, with 91.1% of analgesia assessment mainly with the Behavioral Pain Scale. In the survey, opioids were reported as the first analgesic. In clinical practice, acetaminophen was the first option (34.6%), followed by opioids. Delirium assessment was reported by 70% of physicians but was performed in less than 10% of the patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results from the survey did not accurately reflect the common practices in Portuguese intensive care units, as reported in the point prevalence study. Efforts should be made specifically to avoid oversedation and to promote delirium assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":53519,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","volume":"34 2","pages":"227-236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354111/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20220020-pt","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To establish current Portuguese critical care practices regarding analgesia, sedation, and delirium based on a comparison between the activities reported and daily clinical practice.

Methods: A national survey was conducted among physicians invited to report their practice toward analgesia, sedation, and delirium in intensive care units. A point prevalence study was performed to analyze daily practices.

Results: A total of 117 physicians answered the survey, and 192 patients were included in the point prevalence study. Survey and point prevalence studies reflect a high sedation assessment (92%; 88.5%), with the Richmond Agitated Sedation Scale being the most reported and used scale (41.7%; 58.2%) and propofol being the most reported and used medication (91.4%; 58.6%). Midazolam prescribing was reported by 68.4% of responders, but a point prevalence study revealed a use of 27.6%.Although 46.4% of responders reported oversedation, this was actually documented in 32% of the patients. The survey reports the daily assessment of pain (92%) using standardized scales (71%). The same was identified in the point prevalence study, with 91.1% of analgesia assessment mainly with the Behavioral Pain Scale. In the survey, opioids were reported as the first analgesic. In clinical practice, acetaminophen was the first option (34.6%), followed by opioids. Delirium assessment was reported by 70% of physicians but was performed in less than 10% of the patients.

Conclusion: The results from the survey did not accurately reflect the common practices in Portuguese intensive care units, as reported in the point prevalence study. Efforts should be made specifically to avoid oversedation and to promote delirium assessment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
葡萄牙的镇静、镇痛和谵妄管理:一项调查和点流行率研究。
目的:根据报告的活动与日常临床实践的比较,建立目前葡萄牙关于镇痛、镇静和谵妄的重症监护实践。方法:一项全国性的调查是在医生中进行的,这些医生被邀请报告他们在重症监护病房中对镇痛、镇静和谵妄的做法。进行了一项点患病率研究来分析日常实践。结果:117名医生接受调查,192名患者被纳入点患病率研究。调查和点患病率研究反映了高镇静评估(92%;88.5%),其中Richmond激动镇静量表是报告和使用最多的量表(41.7%;58.2%),异丙酚是报告和使用最多的药物(91.4%;58.6%)。68.4%的应答者报告开具咪达唑仑处方,但一项点状流行研究显示使用率为27.6%。尽管46.4%的应答者报告了过度镇静,但实际上有32%的患者记录了这一点。该调查使用标准化量表(71%)报告每日疼痛评估(92%)。在点患病率研究中也发现了同样的情况,91.1%的镇痛评估主要使用行为疼痛量表。在调查中,阿片类药物被报道为第一镇痛药。在临床实践中,对乙酰氨基酚是第一选择(34.6%),其次是阿片类药物。70%的医生报告了谵妄评估,但只有不到10%的患者进行了评估。结论:调查结果并没有准确反映葡萄牙重症监护病房的常见做法,正如点患病率研究中所报告的那样。应特别努力避免过度镇静,并促进谵妄评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Patient-level costs of central line-associated bloodstream infections caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms in a public intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study Critical COVID-19 and neurological dysfunction - a direct comparative analysis between SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious pathogens. Reply to: Epistaxis as a complication of high-flow nasal cannula therapy in adults. Robust, maintainable, emergency invasive mechanical ventilator. Erratum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1