Suppr超能文献

重症监护病房中疼痛与躁动系统评估的影响

Impact of systematic evaluation of pain and agitation in an intensive care unit.

作者信息

Chanques Gerald, Jaber Samir, Barbotte Eric, Violet Sophie, Sebbane Mustapha, Perrigault Pierre-François, Mann Claude, Lefrant Jean-Yves, Eledjam Jean-Jacques

机构信息

Intensive Care and Anesthesiology Department "B" (DAR B), Saint Eloi Hospital, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier Cedex 5, France.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;34(6):1691-9. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000218416.62457.56.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To measure the impact of implementation of the systematic evaluation of pain and agitation by nurses using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) associated with medical staff education in analgesia and sedation management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

DESIGN

Two-phase, prospective, controlled study.

SETTING

Twelve-bed medical-surgical ICU in a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients staying >24 hrs in ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

BPS, NRS, and RASS were measured twice daily, at rest, by independent observers during 21 wks (control group) and after 4 wks of training, by nurses during 29 wks (intervention group). In the intervention group, the treating physician was alerted in case of pain defined by BPS>5 or NRS>3 or in case of agitation defined by RASS>1.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 230 patients were included (control group, n=100; intervention group, n=130). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different. The incidence of pain and agitation decreased significantly in the intervention group: 63% vs. 42% (p=.002) and 29% vs. 12% (p=.002), respectively. Rate of severe pain and agitation events defined by NRS>6 and RASS>2, respectively, also decreased significantly. There were significantly more therapeutic changes in the intervention group in the way of an escalation but also in the way of a de-escalation for analgesic and psychoactive drugs. Compared with the control group, there was a marked decrease in the duration of mechanical ventilation (120 [interquartile range 48-312] vs. 65 (24-192) hrs, p=.01) and nosocomial infections rate (17% vs. 8%, p<.05) in the intervention group. There was no significant difference in median length of stay (9 [4, 15] vs. 7 [4, 13] days) and mortality in ICU (12 vs. 15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic evaluation of pain and agitation, and analgesics and sedatives need was associated with a decrease in incidence of pain and agitation, duration of mechanical ventilation and nosocomial infections.

摘要

目的

评估护士使用行为疼痛量表(BPS)、疼痛数字评分量表(NRS)和 Richmond 躁动镇静量表(RASS)对重症监护病房(ICU)患者进行疼痛和躁动系统评估,并联合医务人员镇痛和镇静管理教育的影响。

设计

两阶段前瞻性对照研究。

地点

大学医院的一个拥有 12 张床位的内科 - 外科重症监护病房。

患者

在 ICU 连续住院超过 24 小时的患者。

干预措施

在 21 周内(对照组),由独立观察者每天两次在患者休息时测量 BPS、NRS 和 RASS;在干预组中,经过 4 周培训后,由护士在接下来的 29 周内每天两次在患者休息时测量。在干预组中,如果 BPS>5 或 NRS>3 定义为疼痛,或 RASS>1 定义为躁动,治疗医生会收到警报。

测量指标及主要结果

共纳入 230 例患者(对照组 100 例,干预组 130 例)。基线特征无显著差异。干预组疼痛和躁动的发生率显著降低:分别为 63%对 42%(p = 0.002)和 29%对 12%(p = 0.002)。分别由 NRS>6 和 RASS>2 定义的严重疼痛和躁动事件发生率也显著降低。干预组在镇痛和精神活性药物的调整方面,无论是升级还是降级,治疗性改变都显著更多。与对照组相比,干预组机械通气时间显著缩短(120[四分位间距 48 - 312]小时对 65(24 - 192)小时,p = 0.01),医院感染率降低(17%对 8%,p<0.05)。中位住院时间(9[4, 15]天对 7[4, 13]天)和 ICU 死亡率(12%对 15%)无显著差异。

结论

疼痛和躁动的系统评估以及镇痛和镇静药物需求与疼痛和躁动发生率、机械通气时间及医院感染率的降低相关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验