Implementing the SCCM Family-Centered Care Guidelines in Critical Care Nursing Practice

Family-centered care is an important component of holistic nursing practice, particularly in critical care, where the impact on families of admitted patients can be physiologically and psychologically burdensome. Family-centered care guidelines, developed by an international group of nursing, medical, and academic experts for the American College of Critical Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine, explore the evidence base in 5 key areas of family-centered care. Evidence in each of the guideline areas is outlined and recommendations are made about how critical care nurses can use this information in family-centered care practice.</jats:p

Family members’ experiences of “wait and see” as a communication strategy in end-of-life decisions

The aim of this study is to examine family members’ experiences of end-of-life decision-making processes in Norwegian intensive care units (ICUs) to ascertain the degree to which they felt included in the decision-making process and whether they received necessary information. Were they asked about the patient’s preferences, and how did they view their role as family members in the decision-making process? A constructivist interpretive approach to the grounded theory method of qualitative research was employed with interviews of 27 bereaved family members of former ICU patients 3–12 months after the patient’s death. The core finding is that relatives want a more active role in end-of-life decision-making in order to communicate the patient’s wishes. However, many consider their role to be unclear, and few study participants experienced shared decision-making. The clinician’s expression “wait and see” hides and delays the communication of honest and clear information. When physicians finally address their decision, there is no time for family participation. Our results also indicate that nurses should be more involved in family–physician communication. Families are uncertain whether or how they can participate in the decision-making process. They need unambiguous communication and honest information to be able to take part in the decision-making process. We suggest that clinicians in Norwegian ICUs need more training in the knowledge and skills of effective communication with families of dying patients

Long-term consequences of an intensive care unit stay in older critically ill patients: design of a longitudinal study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Modern methods in intensive care medicine often enable the survival of older critically ill patients. The short-term outcomes for patients treated in intensive care units (ICUs), such as survival to hospital discharge, are well documented. However, relatively little is known about subsequent long-term outcomes. Pain, anxiety and agitation are important stress factors for many critically ill patients. There are very few studies concerned with pain, anxiety and agitation and the consequences in older critically ill patients. The overall aim of this study is to identify how an ICU stay influences an older person's experiences later in life. More specific, this study has the following objectives: (1) to explore the relationship between pain, anxiety and agitation during ICU stays and experiences of the same symptoms in later life; and (2) to explore the associations between pain, anxiety and agitation experienced during ICU stays and their effect on subsequent health-related quality of life, use of the health care system (readmissions, doctor visits, rehabilitation, medication use), living situation, and survival after discharge and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A prospective, longitudinal study will be used for this study. A total of 150 older critically ill patients in the ICU will participate (ICU group). Pain, anxiety, agitation, morbidity, mortality, use of the health care system, and health-related quality of life will be measured at 3 intervals after a baseline assessment. Baseline measurements will be taken 48 hours after ICU admission and one week thereafter. Follow-up measurements will take place 6 months and 12 months after discharge from the ICU. To be able to interpret trends in scores on outcome variables in the ICU group, a comparison group of 150 participants, matched by age and gender, recruited from the Swiss population, will be interviewed at the same intervals as the ICU group.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Little research has focused on long term consequences after ICU admission in older critically ill patients. The present study is specifically focussing on long term consequences of stress factors experienced during ICU admission.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN52754370">ISRCTN52754370</a></p

Towards a Physiology-Based Measure of Pain: Patterns of Human Brain Activity Distinguish Painful from Non-Painful Thermal Stimulation

Pain often exists in the absence of observable injury; therefore, the gold standard for pain assessment has long been self-report. Because the inability to verbally communicate can prevent effective pain management, research efforts have focused on the development of a tool that accurately assesses pain without depending on self-report. Those previous efforts have not proven successful at substituting self-report with a clinically valid, physiology-based measure of pain. Recent neuroimaging data suggest that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and support vector machine (SVM) learning can be jointly used to accurately assess cognitive states. Therefore, we hypothesized that an SVM trained on fMRI data can assess pain in the absence of self-report. In fMRI experiments, 24 individuals were presented painful and nonpainful thermal stimuli. Using eight individuals, we trained a linear SVM to distinguish these stimuli using whole-brain patterns of activity. We assessed the performance of this trained SVM model by testing it on 16 individuals whose data were not used for training. The whole-brain SVM was 81% accurate at distinguishing painful from non-painful stimuli (p<0.0000001). Using distance from the SVM hyperplane as a confidence measure, accuracy was further increased to 84%, albeit at the expense of excluding 15% of the stimuli that were the most difficult to classify. Overall performance of the SVM was primarily affected by activity in pain-processing regions of the brain including the primary somatosensory cortex, secondary somatosensory cortex, insular cortex, primary motor cortex, and cingulate cortex. Region of interest (ROI) analyses revealed that whole-brain patterns of activity led to more accurate classification than localized activity from individual brain regions. Our findings demonstrate that fMRI with SVM learning can assess pain without requiring any communication from the person being tested. We outline tasks that should be completed to advance this approach toward use in clinical settings

The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients.

Background: Patients with pressure ulcers (PUs) report that pain is their most distressing symptom, but there are few PU pain prevalence studies. We sought to estimate the prevalence of unattributed pressure area related pain (UPAR pain) which was defined as pain, soreness or discomfort reported by patients, on an " at risk" or PU skin site, reported at a patient level.Methods: We undertook pain prevalence surveys in 2 large UK teaching hospital NHS Trusts (6 hospitals) and a district general hospital NHS Trust (3 hospitals) during their routine annual PU prevalence audits. The hospitals provide secondary and tertiary care beds in acute and elective surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, burns, medicine, elderly medicine, oncology and rehabilitation. Anonymised individual patient data were recorded by the ward nurse and PU prevalence team. The analysis of this prevalence survey included data summaries; no inferential statistical testing was planned or undertaken. Percentages were calculated using the total number of patients from the relevant population as the denominator (i.e. including all patients with missing data for that variable).Results: A total of 3,397 patients in 9 acute hospitals were included in routine PU prevalence audits and, of these, 2010 (59.2%) patients participated in the pain prevalence study. UPAR pain prevalence was 16.3% (327/2010). 1769 patients had no PUs and of these 223 patients reported UPAR pain, a prevalence of 12.6%. Of the 241 people with pressure ulcers, 104 patients reported pain, a UPAR pain prevalence of 43.2% (104/241).Conclusion: One in six people in acute hospitals experience UPAR pain on 'at risk' or PU skin sites; one in every 8 people without PUs and, more than 2 out of every five people with PUs. The results provide a clear indication that all patients should be asked if they have pain at pressure areas even when they do not have a PU