52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Evaluating and monitoring analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit

      review-article
      1 , 2 , , 3 , 4
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit requires evaluation and monitoring of key parameters in order to detect and quantify pain and agitation, and to quantify sedation. The routine use of subjective scales for pain, agitation, and sedation promotes more effective management, including patient-focused titration of medications to specific end-points. The need for frequent measurement reflects the dynamic nature of pain, agitation, and sedation, which change constantly in critically ill patients. Further, close monitoring promotes repeated evaluation of response to therapy, thus helping to avoid over-sedation and to eliminate pain and agitation. Pain assessment tools include self-report (often using a numeric pain scale) for communicative patients and pain scales that incorporate observed behaviors and physiologic measures for noncommunicative patients. Some of these tools have undergone validity testing but more work is needed. Sedation-agitation scales can be used to identify and quantify agitation, and to grade the depth of sedation. Some scales incorporate a step-wise assessment of response to increasingly noxious stimuli and a brief assessment of cognition to define levels of consciousness; these tools can often be quickly performed and easily recalled. Many of the sedation-agitation scales have been extensively tested for inter-rater reliability and validated against a variety of parameters. Objective measurement of indicators of consciousness and brain function, such as with processed electroencephalography signals, holds considerable promise, but has not achieved widespread implementation. Further clarification of the roles of these tools, particularly within the context of patient safety, is needed, as is further technology development to eliminate artifacts and investigation to demonstrate added value.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone.

          Alphaxalone-alphadolone (Althesin), diluted and administered as a controlled infusion, was used as a sedative for 30 patients in an intensive therapy unit. This technique allowed rapid and accurate control of the level of sedation. It had three particularly useful applications: it provided "light sleep," allowed rapid variation in the level of sedation, and enabled repeated assessment of the central nervous system.Sedation was satisfactory for 86% of the total time, and no serious complications were attributed to the use of the drug. Furthermore, though alphaxalone-alphadolone was given for periods up to 20 days there was no evidence of tachyphylaxis or delay in recovery time.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children.

            To evaluate the reliability and validity of the FLACC Pain Assessment Tool which incorporates five categories of pain behaviors: facial expression; leg movement; activity; cry; and consolability. Eighty-nine children aged 2 months to 7 years, (3.0 +/- 2.0 yrs.) who had undergone a variety of surgical procedures, were observed in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). The study consisted of: 1) measuring interrater reliability; 2) testing validity by measuring changes in FLACC scores in response to administration of analgesics; and 3) comparing FLACC scores to other pain ratings. The FLACC tool was found to have high interrater reliability. Preliminary evidence of validity was provided by the significant decrease in FLACC scores related to administration of analgesics. Validity was also supported by the correlation with scores assigned by the Objective Pain Scale (OPS) and nurses' global ratings of pain. The FLACC provides a simple framework for quantifying pain behaviors in children who may not be able to verbalize the presence or severity of pain. Our preliminary data indicates the FLACC pain assessment tool is valid and reliable.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prospective evaluation of the Sedation-Agitation Scale for adult critically ill patients.

              Subjective scales to assess agitation and sedation in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients have rarely been tested for validity or reliability. We revised and prospectively tested the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Ramsay scale and the Harris scale to test construct validity. A convenience sample of ICU patients was simultaneously and independently examined by pairs of trained evaluators by using the revised SAS, Ramsay, and Harris Scales. Multidisciplinary 34-bed ICU in a nonuniversity, academic medical center. Forty-five ICU patients (surgical and medical) were examined a total of 69 times by evaluator pairs. The mean patient age was 63.2 yrs, 36% were female, and 71% were intubated. When classified by using SAS, 45% were anxious or agitated (SAS 5 to 7), 26% were calm (SAS 4), and 29% were sedated (SAS 1 to 3). Interrater correlation was high for SAS (r2 = .83; p < .001) and the weighted kappa score for interrater agreement was 0.92 (p < .001). Of 41 assessments scored as Ramsay 1, 49% scored SAS 6, 41% were SAS 5, 5% were SAS 4, and 2% each were SAS 3 or 7. SAS was highly correlated with the Ramsay (r2 = .83; p < .001) and Harris (r2 = .86; p < .001) scales. SAS is both reliable (high interrater agreement) and valid (high correlation with the Harris and Ramsay scales) in assessing agitation and sedation in adult ICU patients. SAS provides additional information by stratifying agitation into three categories (compared with one for the Ramsay scale) without sacrificing validity or reliability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                2008
                14 May 2008
                : 12
                : Suppl 3
                : S2
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA
                [2 ]Medical Director of Critical Care, Medical College of Virginia Hospitals, Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA
                [3 ]Department of Adult Health Nursing, School of Nursing, VCU, East Leigh St., Richmond, Virginia 23298, USA
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor University Medical Center, Gaston Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75246, USA
                Article
                cc6148
                10.1186/cc6148
                2391268
                18495053
                f230426e-53e5-4f22-87f2-506101a2db93
                Copyright © 2008 BioMed Central Ltd
                History
                Categories
                Review

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article