Evaluation de la douleur chez les personnes cérébrolésées non-communicantes aux soins intensifs

La douleur est fréquente en milieu de soins intensifs et sa gestion est l'une des missions des infirmières. Son évaluation est une prémisse indispensable à son soulagement. Cependant lorsque le patient est incapable de signaler sa douleur, les infirmières doivent se baser sur des signes externes pour l'évaluer. Les guides de bonne pratique recommandent chez les personnes non communicantes l'usage d'un instrument validé pour la population donnée et basé sur l'observation des comportements. A l'heure actuelle, les instruments d'évaluation de la douleur disponibles ne sont que partiellement adaptés aux personnes cérébrolésées dans la mesure où ces personnes présentent des comportements qui leur sont spécifiques. C'est pourquoi, cette étude vise à identifier, décrire et valider des indicateurs, et des descripteurs, de la douleur chez les personnes cérébrolésées. Un devis d'étude mixte multiphase avec une dominante quantitative a été choisi pour cette étude. Une première phase consistait à identifier des indicateurs et des descripteurs de la douleur chez les personnes cérébrolésées non communicantes aux soins intensifs en combinant trois sources de données : une revue intégrative des écrits, une démarche consultative utilisant la technique du groupe nominal auprès de 18 cliniciens expérimentés (6 médecins et 12 infirmières) et les résultats d'une étude pilote observationnelle réalisée auprès de 10 traumatisés crâniens. Les résultats ont permis d'identifier 6 indicateurs et 47 descripteurs comportementaux, vocaux et physiologiques susceptibles d'être inclus dans un instrument d'évaluation de la douleur destiné aux personnes cérébrolésées non- communicantes aux soins intensifs. Une deuxième phase séquentielle vérifiait les propriétés psychométriques des indicateurs et des descripteurs préalablement identifiés. La validation de contenu a été testée auprès de 10 experts cliniques et 4 experts scientifiques à l'aide d'un questionnaire structuré qui cherchait à évaluer la pertinence et la clarté/compréhensibilité de chaque descripteur. Cette démarche a permis de sélectionner 33 des 47 descripteurs et valider 6 indicateurs. Dans un deuxième temps, les propriétés psychométriques de ces indicateurs et descripteurs ont été étudiés au repos, lors de stimulation non nociceptive et lors d'une stimulation nociceptive (la latéralisation du patient) auprès de 116 personnes cérébrolésées aux soins intensifs hospitalisées dans deux centres hospitaliers universitaires. Les résultats montrent d'importantes variations dans les descripteurs observés lors de stimulation nociceptive probablement dues à l'hétérogénéité des patients au niveau de leur état de conscience. Dix descripteurs ont été éliminés, car leur fréquence lors de la stimulation nociceptive était inférieure à 5% ou leur fiabilité insuffisante. Les descripteurs physiologiques ont tous été supprimés en raison de leur faible variabilité et d'une fiabilité inter juge problématique. Les résultats montrent que la validité concomitante, c'est-à-dire la corrélation entre l'auto- évaluation du patient et les mesures réalisées avec les descripteurs, est satisfaisante lors de stimulation nociceptive {rs=0,527, p=0,003, n=30). Par contre la validité convergente, qui vérifiait l'association entre l'évaluation de la douleur par l'infirmière en charge du patient et les mesures réalisés avec les descripteurs, ainsi que la validité divergente, qui vérifiait si les indicateurs discriminent entre la stimulation nociceptive et le repos, mettent en évidence des résultats variables en fonction de l'état de conscience des patients. Ces résultats soulignent la nécessité d'étudier les descripteurs de la douleur chez des patients cérébrolésés en fonction du niveau de conscience et de considérer l'hétérogénéité de cette population dans la conception d'un instrument d'évaluation de la douleur pour les personnes cérébrolésées non communicantes aux soins intensifs. - Pain is frequent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and its management is a major issue for nurses. The assessment of pain is a prerequisite for appropriate pain management. However, pain assessment is difficult when patients are unable to communicate about their experience and nurses have to base their evaluation on external signs. Clinical practice guidelines highlight the need to use behavioral scales that have been validated for nonverbal patients. Current behavioral pain tools for ICU patients unable to communicate may not be appropriate for nonverbal brain-injured ICU patients, as they demonstrate specific responses to pain. This study aimed to identify, describe and validate pain indicators and descriptors in brain-injured ICU patients. A mixed multiphase method design with a quantitative dominant was chosen for this study. The first phase aimed to identify indicators and descriptors of pain for nonverbal brain- injured ICU patients using data from three sources: an integrative literature review, a consultation using the nominal group technique with 18 experienced clinicians (12 nurses and 6 physicians) and the results of an observational pilot study with 10 traumatic brain injured patients. The results of this first phase identified 6 indicators and 47 behavioral, vocal and physiological descriptors of pain that could be included in a pain assessment tool for this population. The sequential phase two tested the psychometric properties of the list of previously identified indicators and descriptors. Content validity was tested with 10 clinical and 4 scientific experts for pertinence and comprehensibility using a structured questionnaire. This process resulted in 33 descriptors to be selected out of 47 previously identified, and six validated indicators. Then, the psychometric properties of the descriptors and indicators were tested at rest, during non nociceptive stimulation and nociceptive stimulation (turning) in a sample of 116 brain-injured ICLI patients who were hospitalized in two university centers. Results showed important variations in the descriptors observed during the nociceptive stimulation, probably due to the heterogeneity of patients' level of consciousness. Ten descriptors were excluded, as they were observed less than 5% of the time or their reliability was insufficient. All physiologic descriptors were deleted as they showed little variability and inter observer reliability was lacking. Concomitant validity, testing the association between patients' self report of pain and measures performed using the descriptors, was acceptable during nociceptive stimulation (rs=0,527, p=0,003, n=30). However, convergent validity ( testing for an association between the nurses' pain assessment and measures done with descriptors) and divergent validity (testing for the ability of the indicators to discriminate between rest and a nociceptive stimulation) varied according to the level of consciousness These results highlight the need to study pain descriptors in brain-injured patients with different level of consciousness and to take into account the heterogeneity of this population forthe conception of a pain assessment tool for nonverbal brain-injured ICU patients.

Financial impact of introducing the Swiss-DRG reimbursement system on potentially avoidable readmissions at a university hospital.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Thirty-day readmissions can be classified as potentially avoidable (PARs) or not avoidable (NARs) by following a specific algorithm (SQLape®). We wanted to assess the financial impact of the Swiss-DRG system, which regroups some readmissions occurring within 18 days after discharge within the initial hospital stay, on PARs at our hospital. METHODS: First, PARs were identified from all hospitalisations recorded in 2011 at our university hospital. Second, 2012 Swiss-DRG readmission rules were applied, regrouped readmissions (RR) were identified, and their financial impact computed. Third, RRs were classified as potentially avoidable (PARRs), not avoidable (NARRs), and others causes (OCRRs). Characteristics of PARR patients and stays were retrieved, and the financial impact of PARRS was computed. RESULTS: A total of 36,777 hospitalisations were recorded in 2011, of which 3,140 were considered as readmissions (8.5%): 1,470 PARs (46.8%) and 1,733 NARs (53.2%). The 2012 Swiss-DRG rules would have resulted in 910 RRs (2.5% of hospitalisations, 29% of readmissions): 395 PARRs (43% of RR), 181 NARRs (20%), and 334 OCRRs (37%). Loss in reimbursement would have amounted to CHF 3.157 million (0.6% of total reimbursement). As many as 95% of the 395 PARR patients lived at home. In total, 28% of PARRs occurred within 3 days after discharge, and 58% lasted less than 5 days; 79% of the patients were discharged home again. Loss in reimbursement would amount to CHF 1.771 million. CONCLUSION: PARs represent a sizeable number of 30-day readmissions, as do PARRs of 18-day RRs in the 2012 Swiss DRG system. They should be the focus of attention, as the PARRs represent an avoidable loss in reimbursement.

Characterizing the vulnerability of frequent emergency department users by applying a conceptual framework: a controlled, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department (ED) users meet several of the criteria of vulnerability, but this needs to be further examined taking into consideration all vulnerability's different dimensions. This study aimed to characterize frequent ED users and to define risk factors of frequent ED use within a universal health care coverage system, applying a conceptual framework of vulnerability. METHODS: A controlled, cross-sectional study comparing frequent ED users to a control group of non-frequent users was conducted at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Frequent users were defined as patients with five or more visits to the ED in the previous 12 months. The two groups were compared using validated scales for each one of the five dimensions of an innovative conceptual framework: socio-demographic characteristics; somatic, mental, and risk-behavior indicators; and use of health care services. Independent t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Pearson's Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were used for the comparison. To examine the -related to vulnerability- risk factors for being a frequent ED user, univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used. RESULTS: We compared 226 frequent users and 173 controls. Frequent users had more vulnerabilities in all five dimensions of the conceptual framework. They were younger, and more often immigrants from low/middle-income countries or unemployed, had more somatic and psychiatric comorbidities, were more often tobacco users, and had more primary care physician (PCP) visits. The most significant frequent ED use risk factors were a history of more than three hospital admissions in the previous 12 months (adj OR:23.2, 95%CI = 9.1-59.2), the absence of a PCP (adj OR:8.4, 95%CI = 2.1-32.7), living less than 5 km from an ED (adj OR:4.4, 95%CI = 2.1-9.0), and household income lower than USD 2,800/month (adj OR:4.3, 95%CI = 2.0-9.2). CONCLUSIONS: Frequent ED users within a universal health coverage system form a highly vulnerable population, when taking into account all five dimensions of a conceptual framework of vulnerability. The predictive factors identified could be useful in the early detection of future frequent users, in order to address their specific needs and decrease vulnerability, a key priority for health care policy makers. Application of the conceptual framework in future research is warranted.

Targeting burn prevention in the paediatric population : a prospective study of children's burns in the Lausanne area.

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: Domestic accidents are an important problem in paediatric medicine. This study was designed to gain a better understanding of burn mechanisms and target prevention. METHODS: Children treated for burn lesions in the Department of Paediatric Surgery between August 2004 and August 2005 were included in this prospective study. The burn mechanisms, the children's ages and the circumstances in which children were burned as well as their home environment variables were analyzed. RESULTS: The current study included eighty-nine patients, aged between 2 months and 15 years. Seventy-eight percent were less than 5 years old. More than half were boys. Hot liquid scalding was the most frequent mechanism. There does not seem to be an increased risk in the immigrant population or in low economic status families. In most cases, an adult person was present at time of injury. CONCLUSIONS: If we were to describe the highest "at risk" candidate for a burn in our region, it would be a boy aged 15 months to 5 years who is burned by a cup of hot liquid on his hand, at home, around mealtime, in the presence of one or both parents. Reduced attention in the safe domestic setting is probably responsible.