Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025

Determining Pain Detection and Tolerance Thresholds Using an Integrated, Multi-Modal Pain Task Battery
Published on: April 14, 2016
Enhancing European Management of Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium: A Multinational, Prospective, Interventional
Nicolas Paul1, Julius J Grunow1,2, Max Rosenthal1
1Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Background:
The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of a structured educational intervention on the implementation of guideline-recommended pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) assessment.
Methods:
This was a prospective, multinational, interventional before-after trial conducted at 12 intensive care units from 10 centers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. Intensive care units underwent a 6-week structured educational program, comprising online lectures, instructional videos, educational handouts, and bedside teaching. Patient-level PAD assessment data were collected in three 1-day point-prevalence assessments before (T1), 6 weeks after (T2), and 1 year after (T3) the educational program.
Results:
A total of 430 patients were included. The rate of patients who received all three PAD assessments changed from 55% (107/195) at T1 to 53% (68/129) at T2, but increased to 73% (77/106) at T3 (p = 0.003). The delirium screening rate increased from 64% (124/195) at T1 to 65% (84/129) at T2 and 77% (82/106) at T3 (p = 0.041). The pain assessment rate increased from 87% (170/195) at T1 to 92% (119/129) at T2 and 98% (104/106) at T3 (p = 0.005). The rate of sedation assessment showed no signficiant change. The proportion of patients who received nonpharmacological delirium prevention measures increased from 58% (114/195) at T1 to 80% (103/129) at T2 and 91% (96/106) at T3 (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed that at T3, patients were more likely to receive a delirium assessment (odds ratio [OR] 2.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.206-3.790; p = 0.009), sedation assessment (OR 4.131, 95% CI 1.372-12.438; p = 0.012), or all three PAD assessments (OR 2.295, 95% CI 1.349-3.903; p = 0.002) compared with T1.
Conclusions:
In routine care, many patients were not assessed for PAD. Assessment rates increased significantly 1 year after the intervention. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03553719.
More Related Videos
06:04Objective Nociceptive Assessment in Ventilated ICU Patients: A Feasibility Study Using Pupillometry and the Nociceptive Flexion Reflex
Published on: July 4, 2018
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Analgesia and Pain Management
Parenteral Anesthetics: Overview
Stages of General Anesthesia
Blind Procedures
General Anesthesia: Overview
General anesthesia induces unconsciousness in the whole body, while the others target specific areas or sensations. It is administered to minimize adverse effects, maintain...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...