DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

Evaluation of two instruments of perceived symptom intensity in palliative care patients in an outpatient clinic

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the test-retest stability in assessments of perceived symptom intensity on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative. The possible interchangeability between the instruments and the patients' experiences of completing the instruments were also studied. BACKGROUND: The two instruments assess the same symptoms, but the symptom intensity is assessed on 11-point numerical scales on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised and on four-point verbal descriptive scales on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative. Both instruments are commonly used; however, uncertainty exists about which instrument should be recommended and about the interchangeability of the instruments. DESIGN: This study used a test-retest design with inter-scale comparisons. METHODS: Data from 54 patients with cancer who were receiving palliative care in an oncology outpatient clinic were self-reported by the patients in the clinic, at home and when patients returned to the clinic. RESULTS: The assessments on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative verbal rating scales showed a higher level of test-retest stability than the assessments on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised numerical scoring scales, indicating higher reliability. The correspondence between the verbal categories and the numerical scores of symptom intensity were low because different verbal categories were used by patients who assessed the same numerical score. CONCLUSIONS: The test-retest stability in the assessments was higher on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative and the results show that assessments on the two instruments could not be used interchangeably. Therefore, the symptom instrument chosen must be specified and unchanged within a patient to improve efficacy in clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised or the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative can be used for initial assessments of patients, but should not be compared or used interchangeably. It is vitally important to have individual follow-up for all patients who score an instrument.

An evaluation of an action research nursing documentation project

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions of an intervention implemented in an action research project conducted to improve nursing documentation practices in four municipalities in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Documentation of individualized patient care is a continuing concern in healthcare services and could impacts the quality and safety of healthcare. Use of electronic systems has made some aspects of documentation more comprehensive, but creation of an individualized care plan remains a pressing issue.

DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was used.

METHODS: An action research project was conducted between 2010 and 2012 to improve the content and quality of nursing documentation in community healthcare services in four municipalities. One year after the project was completed four focus group interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals, one for each involved municipality. Two unit managers were interviewed individually. Qualitative content analysis was used.

RESULTS: Three themes emerged: healthcare professionals perceived competing interest; they experienced that they had to manage complexity and changes; and they highlighted a clear and visible leader as important for success.

CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement activities are essential. Healthcare professionals experience a complicated situation when electronic health record systems do not support workflow. Further research is recommended to focus on the functionality and user interface of EHR systems, and on the role of leadership when implementing changes in clinical practice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

It is not that simple nor compelling! Comment on "Translating evidence into healthcare policy and practice: single versus multi-faceted implementation strategies - is there a simple answer to a complex question?"

Healthcare decisions are often made under pressure, with varying levels of information in a changing clinical context. With limited resources and a focus on improving patient outcomes, healthcare managers and health professionals strive to implement both clinical and cost-effective care. However, the gap between research evidence and health policy/clinical practice persists despite our best efforts. In an attempt to close the gap through behaviour change interventions, there has been a strong held belief that 'more is better,' without understanding the mechanisms and circumstances of knowledge translation (KT). We argue that even a single intervention or strategy in translating evidence into healthcare policy or practice is rarely simple to implement. Nor is the evidence compelling on the best approach. As Harvey and Kitson argued, designing and evaluating KT interventions requires flexibility and responsiveness. If we are to move forward in translation science then we need to use rigorous designs such as randomised controlled trials to test effectiveness of interventions or strategies with embedded process evaluations to understand the reason interventions do or do not work!

Comparison of medication policies to guide nursing practice across seven Victorian health services

Objectives The objective of this paper is to review and compare the content of medication management policies across seven Australian health services located in the state of Victoria. Methods The medication management policies for health professionals involved in administering medications were obtained from seven health services under one jurisdiction. Analysis focused on policy content, including the health service requirements and regulations governing practice. Results and Conclusions The policies of the seven health services contained standard information about staff authorisation, controlled medications and poisons, labelling injections and infusions, patient self-administration, documentation and managing medication errors. However, policy related to individual health professional responsibilities, single- and double-checking medications, telephone orders and expected staff competencies varied across the seven health services. Some inconsistencies in health professionals' responsibilities among medication management policies were identified. What is known about the topic? Medication errors are recognised as the single most preventable cause of patient harm in hospitals and occur most frequently during administration. Medication management is a complex process involving several management and treatment decisions. Policies are developed to assist health professionals to safely manage medications and standardise practice; however, co-occurring activities and interruptions increase the risk of medication errors. What does this paper add? In the present policy analysis, we identified some variation in the content of medication management policies across seven Victorian health services. Policies varied in relation to medications that require single- and double-checking, as well as by whom, nurse-initiated medications, administration rights, telephone orders and competencies required to check medications. What are the implications for practitioners? Variation in medication management policies across organisations is highlighted and raises concerns regarding consistency in governance and practice related to medication management. Lack of practice standardisation has previously been implicated in medication errors. Lack of intrajurisdictional concordance should be addressed to increase consistency. Inconsistency in expectations between healthcare services may lead to confusion about expectations among health professionals moving from one healthcare service to another, and possibly lead to increased risk of medication errors.

Nursing documentation of pressure ulcers in nursing homes: comparison of record content and patient examinations

AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the accuracy and quality of nursing documentation of the prevalence, risk factors and prevention of pressure ulcers, and compare retrospective audits of nursing documentation with patient examinations conducted in nursing homes.

DESIGN: This study used a cross-sectional descriptive design.

METHOD: A retrospective audit of 155 patients' records and patient examinations using the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel form and the Braden scale, conducted in January and February 2013.

RESULTS: The prevalence of pressure ulcers was 38 (26%) in the audit of the patient records and 33 (22%) in patient examinations. A total of 17 (45%) of the documented pressure ulcers were not graded. When comparing the patient examinations with the patient record contents, the patient records lacked information about pressure ulcers and preventive interventions.