优化患者自控镇痛:基于单一中心审计流程的叙述性回顾。

Anesthesia and pain medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.17085/apm.24075
Chahyun Oh, Woosuk Chung, Boohwi Hong
{"title":"优化患者自控镇痛:基于单一中心审计流程的叙述性回顾。","authors":"Chahyun Oh, Woosuk Chung, Boohwi Hong","doi":"10.17085/apm.24075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is valuable for delivering opioids in a flexible and timely manner. Although it is designed to offer personalized analgesia driven by the patients themselves, users often report insufficient pain relief, which can be addressed by optimizing its settings and multimodal analgesia. We adopted a systematic approach to modify PCA protocols by utilizing a serial audit process based on institutional PCA data. This review retrospectively examined the process, encompassing data from 13,230 patients who had used PCA devices. The two modifications to the fentanyl-based PCA protocols resulted in three distinct phases. In the first phase, high opioid consumption and unintended PCA withdrawal were the common issues. These were addressed in the second phase by omitting the routine use of basal infusion. However, this led to increased delivery-to-demand ratios, mitigated in the third phase by increasing the bolus dose from 15 μg to 20 μg. These serial protocol changes have produced varied outcomes across different surgical departments, underscoring the need for careful and gradual adjustments and thorough impact assessments. Drawing insights from this audit process, we incorporated findings from the literature on PCA settings and multimodal analgesic approaches. This review underscores the significance of iterative feedback and refinement of analgesic protocols to achieve optimal postoperative pain management. Additionally, it discusses critical considerations regarding the postoperative audit processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":101360,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","volume":"19 3","pages":"171-184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317320/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing patient-controlled analgesia: a narrative review based on a single center audit process.\",\"authors\":\"Chahyun Oh, Woosuk Chung, Boohwi Hong\",\"doi\":\"10.17085/apm.24075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is valuable for delivering opioids in a flexible and timely manner. Although it is designed to offer personalized analgesia driven by the patients themselves, users often report insufficient pain relief, which can be addressed by optimizing its settings and multimodal analgesia. We adopted a systematic approach to modify PCA protocols by utilizing a serial audit process based on institutional PCA data. This review retrospectively examined the process, encompassing data from 13,230 patients who had used PCA devices. The two modifications to the fentanyl-based PCA protocols resulted in three distinct phases. In the first phase, high opioid consumption and unintended PCA withdrawal were the common issues. These were addressed in the second phase by omitting the routine use of basal infusion. However, this led to increased delivery-to-demand ratios, mitigated in the third phase by increasing the bolus dose from 15 μg to 20 μg. These serial protocol changes have produced varied outcomes across different surgical departments, underscoring the need for careful and gradual adjustments and thorough impact assessments. Drawing insights from this audit process, we incorporated findings from the literature on PCA settings and multimodal analgesic approaches. This review underscores the significance of iterative feedback and refinement of analgesic protocols to achieve optimal postoperative pain management. Additionally, it discusses critical considerations regarding the postoperative audit processes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"171-184\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317320/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia and pain medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.24075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and pain medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.24075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

静脉患者自控镇痛(PCA)对于灵活及时地提供阿片类药物非常重要。虽然患者自控镇痛的设计目的是为患者提供个性化的镇痛,但使用者经常报告疼痛缓解不足,这可以通过优化设置和多模式镇痛来解决。我们采用了一种系统化的方法,通过利用基于机构 PCA 数据的系列审核流程来修改 PCA 协议。本次回顾性研究回顾了这一过程,涵盖了 13,230 名使用过 PCA 设备的患者的数据。对基于芬太尼的 PCA 方案的两次修改分为三个不同的阶段。在第一阶段,阿片类药物消耗量大和意外停用 PCA 是常见问题。在第二阶段,这些问题通过省略常规使用的基础输注得到了解决。然而,这导致了输注与需求比率的增加,在第三阶段,通过将栓塞剂量从 15 微克增加到 20 微克,缓解了这一问题。这些连续的方案变化在不同的外科部门产生了不同的结果,突出了谨慎、渐进调整和全面影响评估的必要性。我们从审核过程中汲取灵感,将有关 PCA 设置和多模式镇痛方法的文献研究结果纳入其中。这篇综述强调了反复反馈和改进镇痛方案以实现最佳术后疼痛管理的重要性。此外,它还讨论了术后审核过程中的关键注意事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Optimizing patient-controlled analgesia: a narrative review based on a single center audit process.

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is valuable for delivering opioids in a flexible and timely manner. Although it is designed to offer personalized analgesia driven by the patients themselves, users often report insufficient pain relief, which can be addressed by optimizing its settings and multimodal analgesia. We adopted a systematic approach to modify PCA protocols by utilizing a serial audit process based on institutional PCA data. This review retrospectively examined the process, encompassing data from 13,230 patients who had used PCA devices. The two modifications to the fentanyl-based PCA protocols resulted in three distinct phases. In the first phase, high opioid consumption and unintended PCA withdrawal were the common issues. These were addressed in the second phase by omitting the routine use of basal infusion. However, this led to increased delivery-to-demand ratios, mitigated in the third phase by increasing the bolus dose from 15 μg to 20 μg. These serial protocol changes have produced varied outcomes across different surgical departments, underscoring the need for careful and gradual adjustments and thorough impact assessments. Drawing insights from this audit process, we incorporated findings from the literature on PCA settings and multimodal analgesic approaches. This review underscores the significance of iterative feedback and refinement of analgesic protocols to achieve optimal postoperative pain management. Additionally, it discusses critical considerations regarding the postoperative audit processes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of characteristics of patients whose sugammadex claims were denied by the Auto Insurance Claims Review Department of Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service: a retrospective single-center review. What is your optimal target of oxygen during general anesthesia in pediatric patients? Early extubation after pediatric cardiac surgery. Effective and safe pediatric sedation. Emergence delirium: an overview with an emphasis on the use of electroencephalography in its management.
×
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