Intervención interdisciplinaria del paciente con dolor en Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo (UCI): Revisión de tema

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

RESUMEN El dolor es una condición frecuente en los pacientes que se encuentran en Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo (UCI), precipitado y mantenido por estímulos biológicos, psicológicos y sociales. Por esta razón, la atención del paciente con dolor en estos escenarios, trasciende el alcance médico y requiere de la interdisciplinariedad. Los objetivos de esta revisión fueron presentar las estrategias de evaluación e intervención del dolor en pacientes que se encuentran en UCI y proponer una estrategia de abordaje interdisciplinario del dolor en estas unidades. La literatura muestra que los métodos de evaluación del dolor son diversos y se utilizan instrumentos específicos cualitativos y cuantitativos según el estado de consciencia del paciente. Estos métodos pueden ser utilizados por diversos profesionales. La intervención del dolor en la UCI está a cargo básicamente de los profesionales de la Enfermería y la Medicina, a pesar de las evidentes necesidades psicológicas de los pacientes. Con base en la evidencia de que la intervención del paciente dolor en UCI es multidisciplinaria, se propone una intervención interdisciplinaria que incluya a la familia del paciente.

Translated abstract

ABSTRACT Pain is a common condition in patients who are in intensive care units (ICU), precipitated and maintained by biological, psychological and social stimuli. Therefore, the management of patients in ICU with pain, requires an interdisciplinary approach to care which transcends the medical scope. The aims of this review were to present the strategies for assessment and management of pain in ICU patients, and to propose an interdisciplinary approach to deliver a more effective management in these units. The literature shows that the methods for pain assessment are diverse and that specific qualitative and quantitative measurements are used according to the patient’s state of consciousness. The management of pain in the ICU is primarily determined by nursing and medical professionals despite the patients’ psychological needs. Based on the evidence that pain management is multidisciplinary, it is proposed an interdisciplinary intervention which include the family.

Related collections

Most cited references 81

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit.

Juliana Barr, Gilles L Fraser, Kathleen Puntillo … (2013)

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

0 comments Cited 374 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage. Recommended by the IASP Subcommittee on Taxonomy.

John Jarrell (1979)

0 comments Cited 169 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Assessing pain in critically ill sedated patients by using a behavioral pain scale.

J-L Bosson, J-F Payen, P Lavagne … (2001)

To establish the validity and reliability of a new behavioral pain scale (BPS) for critically ill sedated adult patients. Prospective evaluation. Ten-bed trauma and surgical intensive care unit in a university teaching hospital. Thirty mechanically ventilated patients who were receiving analgesia and sedation. Assessments with the BPS were completed consecutively at standardized times (morning, afternoon, night) by pairs of evaluators (nurse and nurse's aide). They collected physiologic parameters and BPS results before and during care procedures: non-nociceptive (group 1, compression stockings application and central venous catheter dressing change), nociceptive (group 2, endotracheal suctioning and mobilization), and retested nociceptive (group 3). The BPS score was the sum of three items that had a range score of 1-4: facial expression, movements of upper limbs, and compliance with mechanical ventilation. Two hundred and sixty nine assessments were completed, including 104, 134, and 31 measurements in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. There was no difference in Ramsay scale scores between the three groups (Ramsay 4-6). Nociceptive stimulations (group 2) resulted in significantly higher BPS values than non-nociceptive ones (group 1, 4.9 vs. 3.5, p <.01), whereas the two groups had comparable BPS values before stimulation (3.1 vs. 3.0). A trend was found in group 2 between the dosage of sedation/analgesia and BPS: the higher the dosage, the lower BPS values and BPS changes to nociceptive stimulation. Group 3 had BPS values similar to group 2 at rest (3.2 vs. 3.2) and during the procedure (4.4 vs. 4.5), with good interrater correlations (r(2) =.71 and.50, respectively). These results indicate that the expression of pain can be scored validly and reliably by using the BPS in sedated, mechanically ventilated patients. Further studies are warranted regarding the utility of the BPS in making clinical decisions about the use of analgesic drugs in the intensive care unit.