首页> 外文OA文献 >Analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated patients - a national survey of clinical practice
【2h】

Analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated patients - a national survey of clinical practice

机译:重症监护疼痛治疗和镇静中系统方法的重要性:护士和医师在评估机械通气重症监护患者的镇痛和镇静需求方面的实践的描述性和探索性研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The importance of high quality pain treatment and sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is well documented. Stressful and uncomfortable daily medical and nursing interventions constitute an important part of ICU treatment. Critically ill patients treated on mechanical ventilation therefore generally need both pain treatment and sedation. A shift from deep to light sedation has been introduced into ICU treatment, allowing the ICU patient to be awake and breathe spontaneously. The major advantages of this approach are decreased ventilator time and that the patient is able to communicate pain and discomfort, to describe treatment effects, and to mobilize. Despite the proven benefits of this strategy, a substantial incidence of suboptimal analgesia and sedation is documented, and ICU professionals struggle to implement feasible methods that support this approach. The application of pain treatment and sedation guidelines, assessment tools, and daily sedation interruption is strongly recommended, but is still not routine in the ICU. In 2007, there was a lack of knowledge about pain treatment and sedation practice in Norwegian ICUs, and there were no indications that Norwegian practice was better organized than in other countries. The aim of this dissertation was to study the processes of analgesia and sedation in intensive care. This was accomplished by a national survey and the implementation of a systematic approach in two Norwegian ICUs. The purpose was to achieve an accurate balance between adequate pain treatment and sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, and to recognize delirium at an early stage.The first empirical study was a national survey that aimed to describe Norwegian ICU nurses’ and physicians’ perceptions of practice, cooperation, and problems in the daily use of procedures for analgesia and sedation in ICU (study I). One nurse and one physician representing each of the 54 Norwegian ICUs were included. In the second empirical study, a prospective descriptive two-site study was developed to explore the effect of introducing a systematic approach to pain, sedation and delirium management in the ICU by the implementation of four assessment tools (study IIa and IIb). Frequency of pain and sedation documentation, the number of days when a sedation level was prescribed, patients’ levels of pain and sedation, and the amount of analgesics and sedatives used were documented for 39 patients corresponding to 281 ICU days before implementation of the tools versus 139 patients corresponding to 958 ICU days after implementation (study IIa). This substudy also included data from a questionnaire completed by 55 ICU nurses before and after implementation on their perceived benefit of the assessment tools. In substudy IIb, we also tested the usefulness of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care (CAM-ICU) in the ICU population and described the incidence of delirium in the same cohort. Finally, through the use of focus group interviews we explored how 14 ICU nurses at the two study sites experienced their ability to perform clinical judgments of patient pain, sedation and confusion levels 1 month and 3 months after implementation of assessment tools, and how the tools influenced these judgments (study III).List of papers. The papers are removed from the thesis due to publisher restrictions.Paper I: Wøien H, Stubhaug A, Bjørk IT. Analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated patients - a national survey of clinical practice. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2012; 56, 23-29. Paper II: Wøien H, Balsliemke S, Stubhaug A. The incidence of delirium in Norwegian intensive care units; deep sedation makes assessment difficult. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2013; 57, 294-302. Paper III: Wøien H, Værøy H, Aamodt G, Bjørk IT. Improving the systematic approach to pain and sedation management in the ICU by using assessment tools. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2012; Early View. Paper IV: Wøien H, Bjørk IT. Intensive care pain treatment and sedation: Nurses’ experiences of the conflict between clinical judgment and standardized care: An explorative study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. 2013; 29, 128-136.
机译:在重症监护病房(ICU)高品质疼痛治疗和镇静作用的重要性是有据可查的。紧张和不舒服的日常医疗和护理措施,构成了ICU治疗的重要组成部分。因此危重机械通气治疗重症患者通常需要同时治疗疼痛和镇静。由深至轻度镇静的换档已引入ICU治疗,使病人ICU保持清醒和自发呼吸。这种方法的主要优点是减少呼吸机的时间和患者能够通信的疼痛和不适,形容的治疗效果,并动员。尽管这种策略中获益,次优的镇痛和镇静的主要发病率记录,和ICU专业人士努力实现支持这种做法是可行的方法。强烈建议疼痛治疗和镇静指南,评估工具,以及日常镇静中断的应用,但仍然没有在ICU程序。在2007年,有一个缺乏对疼痛治疗和镇静做法在挪威加护病房的知识,并没有迹象表明,挪威的做法比在其他国家举办。本文的目的是研究镇痛和镇静的过程在重症监护室。这是由国家调查和系统的方法有两种挪威的ICU实施完成。目的是实现危重机械通气患者足够的疼痛治疗和镇静之间的精确平衡,并在stage.The早就认识到谵妄第一实证研究是一项全国性调查,旨在描述挪威ICU护士和医生的看法实践中,合作,并且在日常使用中ICU镇痛和镇静程序(研究I)的问题。一名护士和代表每54个挪威ICU中的一个医生都包括在内。在第二个实证研究,前瞻性描述两站点研究开发,探讨通过四个评估工具(研究IIa和IIb)的实施将在ICU的系统方法疼痛,镇静和谵妄管理的效果。疼痛和镇静文件的频率,当镇静水平规定的天数,患者的疼痛和镇静的水平,并使用被证明因为执行的工具与之前对应的281 ICU天39例患者止痛药和镇静剂的用量相当于958天的ICU实施(IIA研究)后,139例患者。该亚组还包括由前和他们认为的评估工具的好处实施后55名ICU护士完成了调查问卷的数据。在亚组IIB,我们还测试了混乱的重症监护(CAM-ICU)在ICU人口评估方法的有效性,并在同一个队列描述谵妄的发生率。最后,通过采用焦点小组访谈中,我们探讨14名ICU护士在两个研究地点如何经历了实施的评估工具后进行病人疼痛,镇静和混乱程度的临床判断1个月和3个月的能力,以及如何工具影响这些判断的论文(研究III)的.List。 WøienH,Stubhaug A,比约克IT:这些论文从论文由于出版商restrictions.Paper我删除。镇痛和机械通气患者镇静 - 临床实践的一项全国性调查。 ACTA Anaesthesiologica斯堪的纳维亚2012; 56,23-29。纸II:WøienH,Balsliemke S,在挪威重症监护病房的谵妄Stubhaug A.发病率;深度镇静使得评估困难。 ACTA Anaesthesiologica斯堪的纳维亚2013; 57,294-302。报告三:WøienH,从Vaeroy H,阿莫特G,比约克IT。通过使用评估工具提高在ICU系统的方法对疼痛和镇静管理。临床护理杂志2012;早期的观点。皮四:WøienH,比约克IT。重症监护治疗疼痛和镇静:探论:护士临床判断和规范化护理之间的冲突的经验。重症与危重监护护理。 2013; 29,128-136。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号