End-of-life issues in intensive care units: a national random survey of nurses' knowledge and beliefs.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the knowledge, beliefs, and ethical concerns of nurses caring for patients dying in intensive care units. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 3000 members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. The survey contained various scenarios depicting end-of-life actions for patients: pain management, withholding or withdrawing life support, assisted suicide, and voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. RESULTS: Most of the respondents (N = 906) correctly identified the distinctions among the end-of-life actions depicted in the scenarios. Almost all (99%-100%) agreed with the actions of pain management and withholding or withdrawing life support. A total of 83% disagreed with assisted suicide, 95% disagreed with voluntary euthanasia, and 89% to 98% disagreed with nonvoluntary euthanasia. Most (78%) thought that dying patients frequently (31%) or sometimes (47%) received inadequate pain medicine, and almost all agreed with the double-effect principle. Communication between nurses and physicians was generally effective, but unit-level conferences that focused on grief counseling and debriefing staff rarely (38%) or never (49%) occurred. Among the respondents, 37% had been asked to assist in hastening a patient's death. Although 59% reported that they seldom acted against their consciences in caring for dying patients, 34% indicated that they sometimes had acted against their conscience, and 6% had done so to a great extent. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care unit nurses strongly support good pain management for dying patients and withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapies to allow unavoidable death. The vast majority oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia. Wider professional and public dialogue on end-of-life care in intensive care units is warranted.

Patients' perceptions and responses to procedural pain: results from Thunder Project II.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the painfulness of procedures commonly performed in acute and critical care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe pain associated with turning, wound drain removal, tracheal suctioning, femoral catheter removal, placement of a central venous catheter, and nonburn wound dressing change and frequency of use of analgesics during procedures. METHODS: A comparative, descriptive design was used. Numeric rating scales were used to measure pain intensity and procedural distress; word lists, to measure pain quality. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 6201 patients: 176 younger than 18 years and 5957 adults. Mean pain intensity scores for turning and tracheal suctioning were 2.80 and 3.00, respectively (scale, 0-5), for 4- to 7-year-olds and 52.0 and 28.1 (scale, 0-100) for 8- to 12-year-olds. For adolescents, mean pain intensity scores for wound dressing change, turning, tracheal suctioning, and wound drain removal were 5 to 7 (scale, 0-10); mean procedural distress scores were 4.83 to 6.00 (scale, 0-10). In adults, mean pain intensity scores for all procedures were 2.65 to 4.93 (scale, 0-10); mean procedural distress scores were 1.89 to 3.47 (scale, 0-10). The most painful and distressing procedures were turning for adults and wound care for adolescents. Procedural pain was often described as sharp, stinging, stabbing, shooting, and awful. Less than 20% of patients received opiates before procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Procedural pain varies considerably and is procedure specific. Because procedures are performed so often, more individualized attention to preparation for and control of procedural pain is warranted.

Management of surgical and procedural pain in a critical care setting.

Critical care nurses can serve as pain management advocates so that those patients who undergo surgery and other procedures do not suffer needless pain. Research findings indicate that surgical and procedural pain can contribute to pathologic pain states related to nerve injury, tissue inflammation, and prolonged peripheral nociceptive input. Animal research findings support clinical practices that avoid the development of these conditions by effectively interrupting ongoing nociceptive input from the injured site. Knowledge of analgesic interventions, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic techniques, is essential to the professional practice of nursing the critically ill. The critical care nurse plays a pivotal role in preventing suffering, discomfort, and long-term negative consequences related to surgical and procedural pain.

Translating research into practice. Implications of the Thunder Project II.

The Thunder Project II study described procedural pain in a variety of acute and critical care settings. The procedures studied were turning, tracheal suctioning, wound drain removal, nonburn wound dressing change, femoral sheath removal, and central venous catheter insertion. Turning had the highest mean pain intensity, whereas femoral sheath removal and central venous catheter insertion had the least pain intensity in adults. Nonwound dressing change had the highest pain intensity for teenagers. Pain occurred in procedures that are often repeated several times a day as well as in those that may be single events. There is a wide range of pain responses to any of these procedures; as a result, standardized and thoughtful pain, and distress assessments are warranted. Planning of care, including the use of preemptive analgesic interventions, needs to be individualized. Future studies are needed to describe patient responses to other commonly performed nursing procedures and to identify effective interventions for reducing procedural pain and distress.

Variability of analgesic practices for hospitalized children on different pediatric specialty units.

This study examined the differences in the prescription and administration of analgesics in eight pediatric specialty units. Medical records of patients (n = 153) who were reported by nurses to be having pain were reviewed. Results showed that there were variations in the type of analgesics prescribed and administered in the different units. Mean doses of opioids were slightly subtherapeutic. The mean doses of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adjuvants were all within the therapeutic range. There were large intervals between doses of medications. Because few patients had pain scores recorded before and after analgesic administration, evidence of relief was inconclusive, and the actual effectiveness of analgesics could not be consistently evaluated. Undertreatment of pain may result from administration of subtherapeutic analgesic doses, long intervals between administrations of doses, lack of proper documentation to guide practice, or a combination of these reasons.

A survey of nursing practice in the assessment and management of pain in children.

The purpose of this study was to describe nurses' perceptions of their practices in the assessment and management of pain in children. Questionnaires were distributed to 260 nurses in a pediatric hospital in the western United States. Results showed that nurses are not consistently assessing pain in children, and pain management practices are not based on systematic assessment. The most frequently reported tool for assessing pain was the numeric rating scale. Children experience a variety of painful procedures during hospitalization, but nurses reported that they are not consistently administering analgesics for painful procedures. Although rarely used, distraction and relaxation techniques were the most frequently reported nonpharmacological interventions. Although nurses did not feel that there were factors preventing them from assessing or managing pain in children, their practices revealed both that they are not using developmentally appropriate tools for assessing pain, and they have not maximized the use of management strategies for controlling pain.

Pain in hospitalized children: pediatric nurses' beliefs and practices.

A descriptive design was used to gather information regarding nurses' beliefs and documentation practices related to pain assessment and management in children. Pediatric nurses (n = 260) from eight hospital units completed a child and pain survey. Nurses' pain-related documentations on children (n = 153) were also examined. Results showed inconsistency between what nurses believe about pain assessment and management and their documentation of practice. Nurses believed that assessment is the first step toward alleviating pain in children. However, it was not evident in their documentations that nurses used developmentally appropriate tools for assessment or for evaluation of children's responses to pain management strategies.

Intramuscular ketorolac vs oral ibuprofen in emergency department patients with acute pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether i.m. ketorolac is superior to oral ibuprofen in patients presenting to an ED in moderate to severe pain. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind study involved a convenience sample of 119 patients aged > or = 18 years who presented to an urban teaching hospital ED with a self-assessed pain intensity score of 5, 6, 7, or 8 (on a numerical rating scale of 0-10). Patients were randomized to receive either 60 mg of i.m. ketorolac and a placebo capsule or 800 mg of oral ibuprofen and a saline injection. Pain scores were measured at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after dosing. Supplemental analgesics were allowed in accordance with standard medical practice. RESULTS: There were 18 patients excluded who did not remain in the ED for the full 2-hour study period. Of those completing the trial, 53 patients received ketorolac and 48 patients received ibuprofen. There were no significant differences in pain scores between ketorolac and ibuprofen at any time during the study. However, there was a statistically significant decrease in pain over time in both treatment groups. Yet, 40% of the patients continued to report pain intensity scores of 5-8 at 2 hours after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: I.m. ketorolac and oral ibuprofen provide comparable levels of analgesia in ED patients presenting with moderate to severe pain. Unfortunately, 40% of all the patients had inadequate pain relief (pain score > or = 5) from either ketorolac or ibuprofen.

Relationship between behavioral and physiological indicators of pain, critical care patients' self-reports of pain, and opioid administration.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the accuracy of inferences about critical care patients' pain based on physiological and behavioral indicators and to assess the relationship between registered nurse and patient pain scores and doses of opioids administered. DESIGN: Descriptive, comparative analysis. SETTING: Three intensive care units and two postanesthesia care units in two hospitals. SUBJECTS: Fourteen critical care nurses who conducted 114 pain assessments on 31 surgical patients. INTERVENTIONS: Nurses used a pain assessment and intervention notation algorithm that contained lists of behavioral and physiological indicators of pain to make inferences about a patient's pain intensity. Fourteen registered nurses completed up to five pain assessments on each patient over a 4-hr period. Following both the physiological and behavioral ratings, nurses rated the patients' pain intensity, using a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale, and they asked patients to provide a self-report of pain intensity, using a similar numeric rating scale. Nurses then administered an intravenous dose of an opioid from a sliding scale prescription. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Moderate-to-strong correlations were found between the number of behavioral indicators at times 1 through 5 and between the number of physiological indicators and nurses' ratings of the patients' pain intensity at times 1 through 4 (p < .05). Although nurses' pain ratings were consistently lower than patients' pain ratings across the five time points, these differences were not significant. The amount of opioid analgesic administered by the nurse correlated more frequently with nurses' pain ratings than with patients' self-reports of pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a detailed, standardized pain assessment and intervention notation algorithm that incorporates behavioral and physiological indicators may assist healthcare professionals in making relatively accurate assessments of a patient's pain intensity. Further research is needed to determine the specific decision-making processes and criteria that healthcare professionals use to choose doses of analgesics to administer to critically ill patients.

Two methods of assessing pain intensity in English-speaking and Spanish-speaking emergency department patients.

INTRODUCTION: Each year emergency departments see millions of patients' many with moderate to severe pain. The use of valid, language-sensitive pain assessment methods is a critical prerequisite to selection and evaluation of pain treatment interventions. However, scant research has been conducted on the validity of pain intensity measurements in English-speaking and non-English-speaking ED patients. This study validated two measures of pain intensity--a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and a word descriptor scale (WDS)--in English-speaking and Spanish-speaking ED patients and determined patient preferences for the pain rating scales. METHODS: ED patients with various medical conditions were asked to rate their pain intensity using both scales, in their language, seven times during a 2-hour study period. Patients were then asked to choose the pain scale that they preferred to use. RESULTS: Moderate to strong correlations were found between the NRS and WDS pain scales. In addition, the NRS and WDS were equally preferred by patients, whether they spoke English (n = 95) or Spanish (n = 21). DISCUSSION: We demonstrated in this study that both the NRS and the WDS scales were valid instruments for measuring pain in English-speaking and Spanish-speaking ED patients. In addition, very little difference was found in patient preference for one of the scales. ED patients in acute pain were able to use both ways of communicating their pain to health professionals. Therefore patients could be offered their choice of either of these simple pain rating scales to evaluate pain and the effectiveness of pain-relieving interventions.

Effects of interpleural bupivacaine on pleural chest tube removal pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Moderate to severe pain associated with the removal of pleural chest tubes is poorly controlled with opioids. New methods are needed to manage the pain associated with this procedure. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of interpleural injections of 0.25% bupivacaine without epinephrine to those of normal saline on chest tube removal pain in cardiothoracic surgery patients. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was used, with a repeated measures design. Pain intensity and distress were measured before, immediately after, and 1 hour after chest tube removal. Pain sensations and affect were evaluated immediately after chest tube removal. The experimental group (n = 21) received bupivacaine and the control group (n = 20) received normal saline. RESULTS: In both groups pain intensity and distress scores were significantly higher at the time of chest tube removal than immediately before or 1 hour after. No significant differences in pain intensity, distress, sensation, or affect scores were found between the two treatment groups. The 13 patients who received intramuscular ketorolac an average of 3.5 hours before the procedure, independent of the study design, had significantly lower pain intensity scores at the time of chest tube removal than the 26 who did not. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that chest tube removal pain is of moderate to severe intensity and that pleural chest tube injections of bupivacaine were not effective in decreasing chest tube removal pain. However, the decrease in pain associated with the administration of ketorolac warrants future study.

Analgesics prescribed and administered to intensive care cardiac surgery patients: does patient age make a difference?

This study was conducted to determine the effects of patient age on the opioid prescription and administration practices of professionals in a sample of 80 cardiac surgery patients. The age categories were patients < 65 years of age and patients > or = 65 years of age. Medical records of adult cardiac surgery patients undergoing valve replacements and coronary artery bypass surgery within a single metropolitan teaching hospital were reviewed. Data were collected for up to three days or until the patient was discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU). For each of the study days, the specific types of opioids prescribed and administered were recorded. Calculations were performed to determine the maximum amounts of opioids prescribed and administered during the study period and to analyze for differences between the two age groups. Analyses revealed that all patients received small amounts of opioid analgesics during their three ICU days: mean = 9.4 mg, day of surgery; mean = 13.3 mg, postoperative day one; mean = 12.1 mg, postoperative day 2. When the total patient sample was evaluated, a significant difference in the doses of opioids prescribed versus administered was found across all three study days. Differences in amounts of opioids administered to the two age groups progressively increased across the three days, with patients > or = 65 receiving less than patients < 65. These differences approached significance on postoperative days one and two. The findings that elderly patients received less opioids than younger patients and that these differences became greater over time is intriguing. Questions remain as to whether ICU patients in pain are under-medicated and whether postsurgical pain control is effective over time.

Chest tube removal practices in critical care units in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment and management are recognized as major problems in critical care settings. However, little is known about pain management practices related to medical procedures performed in the ICU, particularly removal of chest tubes. OBJECTIVES: To describe practices related to chest tube removal in the United States, with an emphasis on pain assessment and management. METHODS: A survey instrument was developed and mailed to 995 members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses who cared for patients with chest tubes. They were asked about chest tube removal practices in their institutions. RESULTS: Chest tubes are removed primarily by physicians and house staff, although 11% of respondents reported that specially trained nurses removed the tubes. Only 16% indicated that a prescription for pain medication was routinely available before chest tube removal. The drug administered most frequently was intravenous morphine sulfate, but the dose varied considerably. Nurses were generally satisfied (65.6%) with practices related to chest tube removal in their unit; nurses who were not satisfied (34.4%) wished to see better pain management practices (45%), removal of tubes by the patient's assigned nurse (17.8%), a protocol for tube removal (13.9%), notification of the nurse before removal (12.2%), and other changes (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Practices associated with chest tube removal, especially pharmacologic management of procedure-related pain, vary in critical care units. Caregivers are advised to develop practice policies to guide decisions about management of acute pain in this patient population.

Pain, pain relief and accuracy of their recall after cardiac surgery.

This study investigated how much pain and pain relief cardiac surgery patients experience in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), and the accuracy of their recall later, during hospital recovery. Thirty-nine patients completed the first interview in the ICU, and 31 of them answered recall questions later. The worst pain patients experienced in the ICU was moderately high, and patients reported 65% pain relief from analgesics administered. In general, patients' later recalled ICU pain was less severe and recalled pain relief from pain medications was greater than what they had reported when in the ICU. A substantial number of patients were unable to rate the effects of analgesics because they did not remember being mediated. One gender difference was noted: women recollected having a higher "worst pain" in ICU than men. Although recall of ICU pain is less than accurate, ICU cardiac surgical patients have episodes of substantial pain. Despite advances in pain management, patients report that pain relief is frequently incomplete and that they do not remember receiving analgesics. A more proactive approach to pain management by health care professionals, which includes informing patients when they are receiving analgesics, may help to improve pain relief in cardiac surgical patients.

Dimensions of procedural pain and its analgesic management in critically ill surgical patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many critically ill patients undergo endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal procedures, yet little documentation of associated pain exists. Therefore, a study was conducted to (1) compare the magnitude and dimensions of pain associated with endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal in intubated and nonintubated patients and (2) correlate preprocedural analgesic administration and pain magnitude. METHODS: Multiple dimensions of pain (ie, intensity, extent, sensation, and affect) were measured after postoperative cardiovascular surgery patients underwent endotracheal suctioning (N = 45) or chest tube removal (N = 35). Preprocedural analgesics and intubation status during pain assessments were noted. RESULTS: Patients reported lower pain intensity with endotracheal suctioning (mean, 4.9 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale) than with chest tube removal (mean, 6.6). Pain extent, sensation, and affect scores were relatively low for endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal. Similar words such as "tender," "sharp," and "heavy" were used to describe both procedures; however, more patients described their response to chest tube removal as "fearful." Intubated patients had different pain experiences than extubated patients. Patients received little analgesic premedication, and correlations were low and nonsignificant between amount of medication received and pain magnitude. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were able to communicate extensive information about procedural pain, even when intubated. Endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal were both painful; yet, there was little preparatory analgesic management of the pain. Research is needed to investigate a variety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for pain related to endotracheal suctioning and chest tube removal.

Pain experiences of intensive care unit patients.

The purpose of this study was to describe various dimensions of the pain experiences of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. A purposive, primarily surgical sample of 24 ICU patients from two hospitals was interviewed after transfer from ICU. All but one patient remembered their ICU stay. Although this and six other patients had no recall of pain, 63% of the sample rated their pain as being moderate to severe in intensity. In a subgroup of nine patients having cardiac surgery, mean morphine sulfate administration during the first three postoperative days was 14 mg/day. This group of patients reported a lack of total pain relief from analgesics. Patients also described various sources of their pain, difficulties they had in communicating their pain, and nonpharmacologic methods that helped relieve their pain. Results of this study clearly indicate that not only pain but its communication and treatment were significant problems for a substantial portion of this ICU sample. Further descriptive and experimental research of pain characteristics and treatment practices for ICU patients is urgently needed. Improvements in nursing practice that result from such research may make a substantial difference in the comfort and well-being of critically ill patients.

The phenomenon of pain and critical care nursing.

Pain is a multidimensional, complex experience. Critically ill patients are particularly vulnerable to pain. Patients in a critical care environment often have difficulty communicating their pain, and their pain may be aggravated by fear and anxiety. Indeed, their response to pain may compromise recovery. Although the significance of pain has been cited in literature, there is a dearth of research regarding pain in the critically ill. Such future research, as well as practice interventions, should be based on an understanding of pain psychophysiology. This article presents an in-depth review of pain mechanisms, including a discussion of pain modulation by the endogenous opioid system. Also reviewed are various pain theories contributing to our knowledge of pain. Finally, methods of pain measurement and treatment are outlined, and their appropriateness to critical care is evaluated. Although knowledge about pain mechanisms, measurement, and therapies has expanded, many issues remain unexplained. This article poses questions regarding pain in critically ill patients and presents specific areas for future nursing research.