Diving Into Blunt Aortic Injury: A Case Review.

Although many advances in trauma care have occurred, traumatic aortic injuries remain a leading cause of death in trauma patients. For those who survive long enough to receive treatment, rapid identification of injuries, surgical intervention, and definitive care are critical. Assessment findings and diagnostic imaging are both necessary to rapidly identify aortic injury and select the proper intervention. Surgical options are now available that, for the appropriate patient with aortic injury, can eliminate the need for invasive surgery, decrease complications, and decrease recovery time.

Case management directors: how to manage in a transition-focused world: part 2.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Case management directors are in a dynamic position to affect the transition of care of patients across the continuum, work with all levels of providers, and support the financial well-being of a hospital. Most importantly, they can drive good patient outcomes. Although the position is critical on many different levels, there is little to help guide a new director in attending to all the "moving parts" of such a complex role.This is Part 2 of a two-part article written for case management directors, particularly new ones.Part 1 covered the first 4 of 7 tracks: (1) Staffing and Human Resources, (2) Compliance and Accreditation, (3) Discharge Planning and (4) Utilization Review and Revenue Cycle. Part 2 addresses (5) Internal Departmental Relationships (Organizational), (6) External Relationships (Community Agency), and (7) Quality and Program Outcomes.This article attempts to answer the following questions: PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: : The information is most meaningful to those case management directors who work in either stand-alone hospitals or integrated health systems and have frontline case managers (CMs) reporting to them. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS: Part 1 found that case management directors would benefit from further research and documentation of "best practices" related to their role, particularly in the areas of leadership and management. The same conclusion applies to Part 2, which addresses the director's responsibilities outside her immediate department. Leadership and management skills apply as well to building strong, productive relationships across a broad spectrum of external organizations that include payer, provider, and regulatory agencies. At the same time, they must also develop the skills to positively influence the revenue cycle and financial health of both the organization for which they work and those to whom they transition patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT: A director of case management with responsibility for transitions of care has more power and influence over patient safety than is commonly known. Few of the directors who are drawn from clinical case management or other leadership positions and thrust into this role are prepared to navigate within the organization, much less across the whole spectrum of payer, provider, and monitoring organizations. Yet the external focus of the director's role continues to grow in importance as the health care industry evolves and more focus is placed on population management and relationships with payers and community providers.

Case management directors: how to manage in a transition-focused world: part 1.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Case management directors are in a dynamic position to affect the transition of care for patients across the continuum, work with all levels of providers, and support the financial well-being of a hospital. Most importantly, they can drive good patient outcomes. Although the position is critical on many different levels, there is little to help guide a new director in attending to all the "moving parts" of such a complex role. The purpose of this two-part article is to provide case management directors, particularly new ones, with a framework for understanding and fulfilling their role.We have divided the guide into seven tracks of responsibility. Part 1 discusses the first four tracks: (1) staffing and human resources, (2) compliance and accreditation, (3) discharge planning, and (4) utilization review and revenue cycle. Part 2 addresses (5) internal departmental relationships (organizational), (6) external relationships (Community agency), and (7) quality and program outcomes. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: The information is most meaningful to those case management directors who work in either stand-alone hospitals or integrated health systems, and have frontline case managers reporting to them. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS: Case management directors would benefit from further research and documentation of "best practices" related to their role, particularly in the areas of leadership and management. New directors would benefit from mentoring and networking with one another. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT: As new regulations and models of care bring increased emphasis and focus to transitions of care, the role of the case management director continues to evolve, growing in importance and complexity. The growing financial impact of readmissions also brings added scrutiny and increased pressure to get the transitions of care right the first time.To operate most effectively, case management directors must understand the full range of their responsibilities and impact. They must find opportunities for themselves and their departments to learn and stay current as the regulatory environment continues to change. Providing a list of functions for which they are responsible, practical strategies for carrying them out, and places to go for help and information can help hospital case management directors operate with the confidence and knowledge they need to influence the quality and safety of patient care for the entire care team and to provide the best possible interactions with patients and family members.

Predictors and use of nonpharmacologic interventions for procedural pain associated with turning among hospitalized adults.

Many hospitalized adults cannot reposition themselves in their beds. Therefore, they are regularly turned by their nurses, primarily to prevent pressure ulcer formation. Earlier research indicates that turning is painful and that patients are rarely premedicated with analgesics. Nonpharmacologic interventions may be used to help with this painful procedure. However, no published research was found on the use of nonpharmacologic interventions for turning of hospitalized patients. The objectives of this study were: 1) to describe patient pain characteristics during turning and their association with patient demographic and clinical characteristics; 2) to determine the frequency of use of various nonpharmacologic interventions for hospitalized adult patients undergoing the painful procedure of turning; and 3) to identify factors that predict the use of specific nonpharmacologic interventions for pain associated with turning. Hospitalized adult patients who experienced turning, the nurses caring for them, and others who were present at the time of turning were asked if they used various nonpharmacologic interventions to manage pain during the turning. Out of 1,395 patients, 92.5% received at least one nonpharmacologic intervention. Most frequently used were calming voice (65.7%), information (60.6%), and deep breathing (37.9%). Critical-care patients were more likely to receive a calming voice (odds ratio [OR] 1.66, p < .01), receive information (OR 1.62, p < .001), and use deep breathing (OR= 1.36, p < .05) than those who were not critical-care patients. Those reporting higher pain were consistently more likely to receive each of the three interventions (OR 1.01, p < .05 for all 3). In conclusion, nonpharmacologic interventions are used frequently during a turning procedure. The specific interventions used most often are ones that can be initiated spontaneously. Our data suggest that patients, nurses, and family members respond to patients' turning-related pain by using nonpharmacologic interventions.

Pain related to tracheal suctioning in awake acutely and critically ill adults: a descriptive study.

The purpose of this secondary data analysis of findings from a larger procedural pain study was to examine several factors related to pain during tracheal suctioning. In addition to tracheal suctioning, other procedures studied included turning, wound drain removal, femoral catheter removal, placement of a central venous catheter, and wound dressing change. A total of 755 patients underwent the tracheal suctioning procedure that was performed primarily in intensive care units (93%). A 0-10 numeric rating scale, a behavioural observation tool, and a modified McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form were used for pain assessment. Pain intensity scores were significantly greater during the tracheal suctioning procedure (M=3.96, S.D.=3.3) than prior to (M=2.14, S.D.=2.8) or after (M=1.98, S.D.=2.7) tracheal suctioning. Few patients received analgesics prior to or during the procedure. Surgical, younger, and non-white patients reported higher pain intensities. Although mean pain intensity during tracheal suctioning was mild, almost the half of the patients reported moderate-to-severe pain. Individualized pain management must be performed by healthcare providers in order to respond to patients' needs as they undergo painful procedures such as tracheal suctioning.

Wound care pain in hospitalized adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Wound care (WC) is an important part of treatment for hospitalized patients with wounds. There is a paucity of data about the type or amount of pain patients experience during WC. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to describe patients' (n = 412) WC-related pain perceptions and responses, examine the relationships between patients' WC pain and demographic variables, and describe the distress associated with WC. METHODS: A repeated-measures design was used to examine pain before, during, and after WC in hospitalized patients (n = 412) with wounds healing by secondary intention. RESULTS: Pain intensity was greatest during WC. It was most frequently described as tender, sharp, stinging, aching, and stabbing. Behaviors that occurred most often were no verbal response, no body movement, grimace, and complaints of pain. There were no differences in pain between genders. Nonwhites had significantly greater WC pain than whites. Pain during the procedure was the same in younger and older patients, and procedural distress was mild. CONCLUSION: Patients experience pain and distress with WC. Some behaviors and words consistently describe WC pain. Further work is warranted to refine pain assessment and management in patients undergoing WC procedures.

Pain behaviors observed during six common procedures: results from Thunder Project II.

OBJECTIVE: Patients frequently display behaviors during procedures that may be pain related. Clinicians often rely on the patient's demonstration of behaviors as a cue to presence of pain. The purpose of this study was to identify specific pain-related behaviors and factors that predict the degree of behavioral responses during the following procedures: turning, central venous catheter insertion, wound drain removal, wound care, tracheal suctioning, and femoral sheath removal. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive study. SETTING: Multiple units in 169 hospitals in United States, Canada, England, and Australia. PATIENTS: A total of 5,957 adult patients who underwent one of the six procedures. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A 30-item behavior observation tool was used to note patients' behaviors before and during a procedure. By comparing behaviors exhibited before and during the procedure as well as behaviors in those with and without procedural pain (as noted on a 0-10 numeric rating scale), we identified specific procedural pain behaviors: grimacing, rigidity, wincing, shutting of eyes, verbalization, moaning, and clenching of fists. On average, there were significantly more behaviors exhibited by patients with vs. without procedural pain (3.5 vs. 1.8 behaviors; t = 38.3, df = 5072.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-1.8). Patients with procedural pain were at least three times more likely to have increased behavioral responses than patients without procedural pain. A simultaneous regression model determined that 33% of the variance in amount of pain behaviors exhibited during a procedure was explained by three factors: degree of procedural pain intensity, degree of procedural distress, and undergoing the turning procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the strong relationship between procedural pain and behavioral responses, clinicians can use behavioral responses of verbal and nonverbal patients to plan for, implement, and evaluate analgesic interventions.

Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures: practices of critical care and emergency nurses.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, patients' families are remaining with them during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures, but this practice remains controversial and little is known about the practices of critical care and emergency nurses related to family presence. OBJECTIVE: To identify the policies, preferences, and practices of critical care and emergency nurses for having patients' families present during resuscitation and invasive procedures. METHODS: A 30-item survey was mailed to a random sample of 1500 members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses and 1500 members of the Emergency Nurses Association. RESULTS: Among the 984 respondents, 5% worked on units with written policies allowing family presence during both resuscitation and invasive procedures and 45% and 51%, respectively, worked on units that allowed it without written policies during resuscitation or during invasive procedures. Some respondents preferred written policies allowing family presence (37% for resuscitation, 35% for invasive procedures), whereas others preferred unwritten policies allowing it (39% for resuscitation, 41% for invasive procedures), Many respondents had taken family members to the bedside (36% for resuscitation, 44% for invasive procedure) or would do so in the future (21% for resuscitation, 18% for invasive procedures), and family members often asked to be present (31% for resuscitation, 61% for invasive procedures). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all respondents have no written policies for family presence yet most have done (or would do) it, prefer it be allowed, and are confronted with requests from family members to be present. Written policies or guidelines for family presence during resuscitation and invasive procedures are recommended.

Family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures: practices of critical care and emergency nurses.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, patients' families are remaining with them during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and invasive procedures, but this practice remains controversial and little is known about the practices of critical care and emergency nurses related to family presence. OBJECTIVE: To identify the policies, preferences, and practices of critical care and emergency nurses for having patients' families present during resuscitation and invasive procedures. METHODS: A 30-item survey was mailed to a random sample of 1500 members of the American Association Of Critical-Care Nurses and 1500 members of the Emergency Nurses Association. RESULTS: Among the 984 respondents, 5% worked on units with written policies allowing family presence during both resuscitation and invasive procedures and 45% and 51%, respectively, worked on units that allowed it without written policies during resuscitation or during invasive procedures. Some respondents preferred written policies allowing family presence (37% for resuscitation, 35% for invasive procedures), whereas others preferred unwritten policies allowing it (39% for resuscitation, 41% for invasive procedures). Many respondents had taken family members to the bedside (36% for resuscitation, 44% for invasive procedures) or would do so in the future (21% for resuscitation, 18% for invasive procedures), and family members often asked to be present (31% for resuscitation, 61% for invasive procedures). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all respondents have no written policies for family presence yet most have done (or would do) it, prefer it be allowed, and are confronted with requests from family members to be present. Written policies or guidelines for family presence during resuscitation and invasive procedures are recommended.

Practices and predictors of analgesic interventions for adults undergoing painful procedures.

BACKGROUND: Research is limited on analgesic practices associated with the commonly performed procedures of turning, inserting central venous catheters, removing wound drains, changing dressings on nonburn wounds, suctioning the trachea, and removing femoral sheaths. OBJECTIVES: To determine types of analgesics administered for procedures, the prevalence and amounts of drugs given, and factors predictive of analgesic administration. METHODS: Pain was assessed before and immediately after procedures. Analgesic, sedative, and anesthetic agents administered within 1 hour before and/or during each procedure were noted RESULTS: A total of 5957 adult patients at 164 national and 5 international sites participated. Pain intensity increased at the time of procedure for all procedures. More than 63% of patients received no analgesics. Less than 20% received opiates; mean total dose of opiate was 6.44 mg (SD, 8.96 mg). Only 10% of patients received combination therapy. Factors associated with the likelihood of receiving opiates were pain intensity before a procedure, femoral sheath removal, being white, and the duration of a procedure. Patients less likely to receive opiates had a medical diagnosis or were having tracheal suctioning. Only 14.5% of the variance in the amount of opiate administered was explained by factors entered into multiple regression models. Type of procedure was the only significant predictor of amount of opiate administered. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were not intentionally medicated even though pain intensity increased during their procedure. When used, analgesic amounts were low, and combination therapy was infrequent. Clinical trials are needed to evaluate optimal pain management for patients undergoing procedures.