Research paper
Nurse titrated analgesia and sedation in intensive care increases the frequency of comfort assessment and reduces midazolam use in paediatric patients following cardiac surgery

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2017.02.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Pain and sedation protocols are suggested to improve the outcomes of patients within paediatric intensive care. However, it is not clear how protocols will influence practice within individual units.

Objectives

Evaluate a nurse led pain and sedation protocols impact on pain scoring and analgesic and sedative administration for post-operative cardiac patients within a paediatric intensive care unit.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on 100 patients admitted to a tertiary paediatric intensive care unit pre and post introduction of an analgesic and sedative protocol. Stata12 was used to perform Chi-squared or Student’s t-test to compare data between the groups.

Results

Post protocol introduction documentation of pain assessments increased (pre protocol 3/24 h vs post protocol 5/24 h, p = 0.006). Along with a reduction in administration of midazolam (57.6 mcg/kg/min pre protocol vs 24.5 mcg/kg/min post protocol, p = 0.0001). Children’s pain scores remained unchanged despite this change, with a trend towards more scores in the optimal range in the post protocol group (5 pre protocol vs 12 post protocol, p = 0.06).

Conclusions

Introducing a pain and sedation protocol changed bedside nurse practice in pain and sedation management. The protocol has enabled nurses to provide pain and sedation management in a consistent and timely manner and reduced the dose of midazolam required to maintain comfort according to the patients COMFORT B scores. Individual evaluation of practice change is recommended to units who implement nurse led analgesic and sedative protocols to monitor changes in practice.

Introduction

Providing optimal analgesia and sedation for children in intensive care is a challenge for clinicians.1 Children who are not provided with sufficient analgesics are at risk of experiencing pain due to invasive treatments; if children are also not adequately sedated, they may be at risk of discomfort.2 Alternatively, children treated with excessive analgesics or sedatives are at risk of developing withdrawal or tolerance.3, 4 Potential long-term consequences of administering sedatives include apoptosis of brain cells5 and learning difficulties.6 However, obtaining an accurate assessment of the child’s level of pain and discomfort, in order to provide an appropriate level of treatment, is challenging in paediatric intensive care (PICU).7, 8 Developmental age, administration of sedatives and intubation all impair the child’s ability to adequately communicate their needs.9, 10

Self-report remains the gold standard of pain assessment,11 though children are not always able to self-report their pain or discomfort due to different developmental stages.12 Pain assessment tools utilise behavioural and physiological parameters in order to overcome developmental communication barriers with children.12 Specific pain tools for children within intensive care have been developed and validated in order to assess children who may be unable to communicate due to developmental age and intensive treatments such as intubation and sedation.13, 14, 15, 16 Utilising a pain and sedation protocol that incorporates a validated assessment tool may aid clinicians to provide evidence- based treatment to children, and avoid incidences of under or over treatment of pain and discomfort.17

Introducing a protocol to manage pain and sedation may influence other outcomes than performing pain assessments, such as analgesic and sedative administration.18, 19 Evaluation of PICU pain and sedation protocols in current literature reveals that there are differences in primary outcome measures. Some studies have reported an increase in administration of sedatives and analgesics following the introduction of a pain and sedation protocol into PICUs18, 20 whilst others report a decrease.19, 21 At the time that this study was conducted, a consensus on how pain and sedation protocols influence ICU length of stay and duration of ventilation was unclear.22

Section snippets

Background

In 2010 the COMFORT B tool was introduced into the PICU for the assessment of both pain and sedation. The COMFORT B tool has demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.78), concurrent validity (Kruskal–Wallis chi squared = 237, df = 2, p = <0.001) and interrater reliability (Kappa 0.71) within the paediatric intensive care for patients aged 0–18 years.14, 15 Using one tool to assess for both pain and sedation is controversial, however the COMFORT B tool has been used for this purpose

Aim

To assess the influence of using a pain and sedation protocol on management of children admitted to PICU following cardiac surgery. Key outcomes included frequency of pain and sedation assessments, dosage/administration of analgesics or sedatives and length of ventilation.

Methods

The setting was a 21 bed PICU that cares for children within the Victorian state of Australia. The unit provides cardiac surgery to approximately 900 children per year.

A retrospective audit of medical records before and after the pain and sedation protocol was performed. Hospital ethics approval was obtained prior to commencing the study. The medical records of 100 patients were audited, as this was deemed achievable within the timeframe required to perform the study. The patients included 50

Inclusion criteria

Intubated and ventilated patients less than 18 years of age admitted into the PICU after cardiac surgery.

Exclusion criteria

Patients were excluded if they received more than two doses of neuromuscular blocking agents once they arrived in PICU.

Collected data included basic demographic information such as age, weight and diagnosis according to the Risk Adjusted Congenital Heart Surgery (RACHS-1) fields.28 Duration of mechanical ventilation and PICU length of stay was also collected. The type of pain and sedation assessment performed was collected, along with the overall score.

Data collection also included amount of

Results

A total of 100 patients admitted to PICU following cardiac surgery were included in the study (Fig. 1). Double data entry revealed 80 out of 7500 data points (1.07%) required review to address errors or to correct missing fields. As detailed in Table 1, there were significantly younger patients in the post protocol group, mostly in the 5 weeks to 12 month group (22% pre protocol vs 50% post protocol, p = 0.004) and the 13 months to 4 years (32% pre protocol vs 2% post protocol, p = 0.001). There

Pain and sedation assessments

The majority of patients received a pain and sedation assessment using the Comfort B score whilst receiving mechanical ventilation (41 pre protocol and 47 post protocol). COMFORT B assessments were performed more frequently in the post protocol group (pre protocol 3/24 h, post protocol 5/24 h, p = 0.006), see Table 2.

Discussion

This study demonstrated that following the introduction of a pain and sedation protocol, the frequency of documented validated pain scores increased. Secondly, there was no change to the COMFORT B score level despite a reduction in the amount of midazolam administered to patients post protocol introduction. However, there was a an increase in the duration of ventilation.

Limitations

In interpreting the study results several limitations are considered; this includes the small number of patients in each group and that the study was performed as a single centre retrospective chart audit. This increases the risk to internal validity through uncontrolled confounding variables.40 However, due to the resources available, this design was the most feasible and thus a sample size calculation would have been inappropriate. The authors considered it important to evaluate the impact of

Implications for practice

Implementing a nurse titrated pain and sedation protocol has contributed to increased frequency of pain and sedation assessment scores and administration of morphine boluses performed by nurses. This is an important outcome of the treatment protocol as it enables nurses to provide timely pain relief in response to the patient’s needs and has the potential to improve patient outcomes in PICU through increased recognition of children’s pain or distress.

Less midazolam was delivered to patients,

Conclusion

Introducing a pain and sedation protocol into the PICU at RCH was associated with important changes in pain and sedation management. Notably an increase in COMFORT B documentation and moderation of sedative administration. Protocolisation enabled nursing staff to provide pain and sedation management in a consistent and timely manner. However, a trend towards increased duration of ventilation is of concern, although may be due to propensity matching not being performed between the patient groups

References (42)

  • G.K. Istaphanous et al.

    General anesthetics and the developing brain

    Curr Opin Anaesthesiol

    (2009)
  • L. Sun

    Early childhood general anaesthesia exposure and neurocognitive development

    Br J Anaesth

    (2010)
  • M. Bennett

    Pain assessment and management in paediatric intensive care: Part 1

    Paediatr Nurs

    (2001)
  • A.A. Boerlage et al.

    The COMFORT behaviour scale detects clinically meaningful effects of analgesic and sedative treatment

    Eur J Pain

    (2015)
  • I. Baulch

    Assessment and management of pain in the paediatric patient

    Nurs Stand

    (2010)
  • A. Lamas et al.

    Monitoring sedation in the critically ill child

    Anaesthesia

    (2010)
  • J. Giordano et al.

    Pain assessment: subjectivity, objectivity, and the use of neurotechnology

    Pain Physician

    (2010)
  • D.L. Wong et al.

    Pain in children; Comparison of assessment scales

    Pediatr Nurs

    (1988)
  • M.A.Q. Curley et al.

    State Behavioral Scale (SBS) a sedation assessment instrument for infants and young children supported on mechanical ventilation

    Pediatr Crit Care Med

    (2006)
  • M. Johansson et al.

    The COMFORT behavioural scale and the modified FLACC scale in paediatric intensive care

    Nurs Crit Care

    (2009)
  • T. Voepel-Lewis et al.

    Reliability and validity of the face, legs, activity, cry, consolability behavioral tool in assessing acute pain in critically ill patients

    Am J Crit Care

    (2010)
  • Cited by (12)

    • Discomfort of the critically ill paediatric patient and correlated variables

      2020, Australian Critical Care
      Citation Excerpt :

      In this case, a correct level of sedation improves patient comfort, so sedation and analgesia together form a useful strategy for maintaining comfort related to distress.7 Optimising care protocols to provide correct pain control and an optimal degree of sedation at intensive care unit (ICU) admission reduces the anxiety of children and has a positive impact on reducing the pain, distress, and discomfort of these patients.8,9 The most commonly used strategy for managing the comfort of critically ill paediatric patients is sedation and analgesia.3,10,11

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text