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.

Objective: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. Methods: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. Results: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. Conclusions: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

Few resources are available to support caregivers of patients who have survived critical illness; consequently, the caregivers’ own health may suffer. We studied caregiver and patient characteristics to determine which characteristics were associated with caregivers’ health outcomes during the first year after patient discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU). We prospectively enrolled 280 caregivers of patients who had received 7 or more days of mechanical ventilation in an ICU. Using hospital data and self-administered questionnaires, we collected information on caregiver and patient characteristics, including caregiver depressive symptoms, psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, sense of control over life, and effect of providing care on other activities. Assessments occurred 7 days and 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge. The caregivers’ mean age was 53 years, 70% were women, and 61% were caring for a spouse. A large percentage of caregivers (67% initially and 43% at 1 year) reported high levels of depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms decreased at least partially with time in 84% of the caregivers but did not in 16%. Variables that were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes in caregivers were younger age, greater effect of patient care on other activities, less social support, less sense of control over life, and less personal growth. No patient variables were consistently associated with caregiver outcomes over time. In this study, most caregivers of critically ill patients reported high levels of depressive symptoms, which commonly persisted up to 1 year and did not decrease in some caregivers. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00896220.)

Rationale: Disability risk groups and 1-year outcome after greater than or equal to 7 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) in medical/surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients are unknown and may inform education, prognostication, rehabilitation, and study design. Objectives: To stratify patients for post-ICU disability and recovery to 1 year after critical illness. Methods: We evaluated a multicenter cohort of 391 medical/surgical ICU patients who received greater than or equal to 1 week of MV at 7 days and 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge. Disability risk groups were identified using recursive partitioning modeling. Measurements and Main Results: The 7-day post-ICU Functional Independence Measure (FIM) determined the recovery trajectory to 1-year after ICU discharge and was an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality. The 7-day post-ICU FIM was predicted by age and ICU length of stay. By 2 weeks of MV, ICU patients could be stratified into four disability groups characterized by increasing risk for post ICU disability, ICU and post-ICU healthcare use, and disposition. Patients less than 42 years with ICU length of stay less than 2 weeks had the best function and fewest deaths at 1 year compared with patients greater than 66 years with ICU length of stay greater than 2 weeks who sustained the worst disability and 40% 1-year mortality. Depressive symptoms (17%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (18%) persisted at 1 year. Conclusions: ICU survivors of greater than or equal to 1 week of MV may be stratified into four disability groups based on age and ICU length of stay. These groups determine 1-year recovery and healthcare use and are independent of admitting diagnosis and illness severity. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00896220).

Delirium is common during critical illness and associated with adverse outcomes. We compared characteristics and outcomes of delirious and nondelirious patients enrolled in a multicenter trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption. Randomized trial. Sixteen North American medical and surgical ICUs. Four hundred thirty critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults. All patients had hourly titration of opioid and benzodiazepine infusions using a validated sedation scale. For patients in the interruption group, infusions were resumed, if indicated, at half of previous doses. Delirium screening occurred daily; positive screening was defined as an Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score of 4 or more at any time. Delirium was diagnosed in 226 of 420 assessed patients (53.8%). Coma was identified in 32.7% of delirious compared with 22.7% of nondelirious patients (p = 0.03). The median time to onset of delirium was 3.5 days (interquartile range, 2–7), and the median duration of delirium was 2 days (interquartile range, 1–4). Delirious patients were more likely to be male (61.1% vs 46.6%; p = 0.005), have a surgical/trauma diagnosis (21.2% vs 11.0%; p = 0.030), and history of tobacco (31.5% vs 16.2%; p = 0.002) or alcohol use (34.6% vs 20.9%; p = 0.009). Patients with positive delirium screening had longer duration of ventilation (13 vs 7 d; p < 0.001), ICU stay (12 vs 8 d; p < 0.0001), and hospital stay (24 vs 15 d; p < 0.0001). Delirious patients were more likely to be physically restrained (86.3% vs 76.7%; p = 0.014) and undergo tracheostomy (34.6% vs 15.5%; p < 0.0001). Antecedent factors independently associated with delirium onset were restraint use (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33–2.63; p = 0.0003), antipsychotic administration (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.005–2.767; p = 0.047), and midazolam dose (hazard ratio, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997–1.0; p = 0.049). There was no difference in delirium prevalence or duration between the interruption and control groups. In mechanically ventilated adults, delirium was common and associated with longer duration of ventilation and hospitalization. Physical restraint was most strongly associated with delirium.