Premium
Understanding the patient experience of pain and discomfort during cardiac catheterization
Author(s) -
Mall Anna,
Girton T. Andrew,
Yardley Kevin,
Rossman Paige,
Ohman E. Magnus,
Jones William Schuyler,
Granger Bradi B.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.28403
Subject(s) - medicine , sedation , patient satisfaction , anesthesia , cardiac catheterization , fentanyl , patient experience , hydromorphone , midazolam , dosing , body mass index , retrospective cohort study , physical therapy , emergency medicine , opioid , surgery , health care , receptor , economics , economic growth
Objectives Patient centeredness is an essential component of high‐quality care, yet little is known regarding the patient experience during procedures performed in the cardiac catheterization lab. Background Available literature focuses on the safe delivery of sedation, but does not address patient‐reported satisfaction or comfort. Further delineation of how procedural factors impact the patient experience is needed. Methods We conducted a retrospective, exploratory analysis of adult cardiac catheterization outpatients ( n = 375) receiving physician ordered, nurse administered procedural sedation (benzodiazepine and/or opioids) between April and June, 2017. Data were abstracted from the procedural database, Electronic Health Record, and Press Ganey © surveys. Results The mean age was 63 ( SD 12.2), a majority were male ( n = 226; 60%), white ( n = 271; 73%), and overweight (mean body mass index = 29, SD 6.8). Patient‐reported satisfaction with pain control and perceived staff concern for comfort were >75th percentile (Press Ganey © survey), with no difference in preprocedure and postprocedure pain scores ( p = .596). Intraprocedural medication dose range and mean frequency were highly variable: midazolam (0.25–5.5 mg; 1.48); fentanyl (12.5–200 mcg; 1.63); and hydromorphone (0.5–2.5 mg; 1.33). Median time interval between administration of initial sedation and local anesthetic was 6 min. Patients with longer intervals had less frequent dosing ( p < .001) and less total procedural sedation ( p < .001). Sensitivity analysis revealed that trainee/fellow involvement ( p = .001), younger age ( p = .002), and shorter time intervals ( p < .001) were associated with increased frequency and larger total dose. Conclusions Waiting to gain vascular access following administration of procedural was associated with less frequent subsequent dosing, lower overall administration, and similar patient satisfaction. Optimizing processes for administering periprocedural sedation may allow for less medication without impacting patient experience.