Cited by 45Intensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Clinical Impact of the Implementation Strategies Used to Apply the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium or 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, Sleep Disruption Guideline Recommendations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Hume, Nicole E., Zerfas, Isabelle, Wong, Adrian, Klein-Fedyshin, Michele, Smithburger, Pamela L., Buckley, Mitchell S., Devlin, John W., Kane-Gill, Sandra L.·2024·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effectiveness of implementation strategies for ICU execution of recommendations from the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium (PAD) or 2018 PAD, Immobility, Sleep Disruption (PADIS) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2012 to August 2023. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175268). STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if: 1) design was randomized or cohort, 2) adult population evaluated, 3) employed recommendations from greater than or equal to two PAD/PADIS domains, and 4) evaluated greater than or equal to 1 of the following outcome(s): short-term mortality, delirium occurrence, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, or ICU length of stay (LOS). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed articles for eligibility, number of PAD/PADIS domains, quality according to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute assessment tools, implementation strategy use (including Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both SAT and SBT; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment [ABCDEF] bundle) by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) category, and clinical outcomes. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 25 of 243 (10.3%) full-text articles included (n = 23,215 patients), risk of bias was high in 13 (52%). Most studies were cohort (n = 22, 88%). A median of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4–7) EPOC strategies were used to implement recommendations from two (IQR 2–3) PAD/PADIS domains. Cohort and randomized studies were pooled separately. In the cohort studies, use of EPOC strategies was not associated with a change in mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.9–1.12), or delirium (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82–1.03), but was associated with a reduction in MV duration (weighted mean difference [WMD] –0.84 d; 95% CI, –1.25 to –0.43) and ICU LOS (WMD –0.77 d; 95% CI, –1.51 to 0.04). For randomized studies, EPOC strategy use was associated with reduced mortality and MV duration but not delirium or ICU LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple implementation strategies to adopt PAD/PADIS guideline recommendations may reduce mortality, duration of MV, and ICU LOS. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies to implement PAD/PADIS recommendations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0000000000006178

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hume, N. E., Zerfas, I., Wong, A., Klein-Fedyshin, M., Smithburger, P. L., Buckley, M. S., Devlin, J. W., & Kane-Gill, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Kentucky HealthCare (US)
  • Michigan Medicine (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Banner Health (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, PA.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2024-01-09
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
626-636
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390779938
Cited by
45
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R13AG072860)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
immobility, sleep disruption, implementation strategies, intensive care unit, delirium prevention, pain management, sedation, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU length of stay, mortality, early mobilization, family involvement, ABCDEF bundle, guideline implementation, critically ill adults, quality of evidence, risk of bias, heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Delirium, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Psychomotor Agitation, Respiration, Artificial, Sleep Wake Disorders, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review