Dorrie K. Fontaine

Bio: Dorrie K. Fontaine is an academic researcher from University of Virginia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Critical care nursing & Nurse education. The author has an hindex of 19, co-authored 44 publications receiving 6020 citations. Previous affiliations of Dorrie K. Fontaine include Society of Critical Care Medicine & Children's Medical Center of Dallas.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Abstract: Objective: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.Methods:The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task f

Clinical practice guidelines for the sustained use of sedatives and analgesics in the critically ill adult.

Abstract: Judith Jacobi, PharmD, FCCM, BCPS; Gilles L. Fraser, PharmD, FCCM; Douglas B. Coursin, MD; Richard R. Riker, MD; Dorrie Fontaine, RN, DNSc, FAAN; Eric T. Wittbrodt, PharmD; Donald B. Chalfin, MD, MS, FCCM; Michael F. Masica, MD, MPH; H. Scott Bjerke, MD; William M. Coplin, MD; David W. Crippen, MD, FCCM; Barry D. Fuchs, MD; Ruth M. Kelleher, RN; Paul E. Marik, MDBCh, FCCM; Stanley A. Nasraway, Jr, MD, FCCM; Michael J. Murray, MD, PhD, FCCM; William T. Peruzzi, MD, FCCM; Philip D. Lumb, MB, BS, FCCM. Developed through the Task Force of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), in collaboration with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), and in alliance with the American College of Chest Physicians; and approved by the Board of Regents of ACCM and the Council of SCCM and the ASHP Board of Directors

Critical care nursing : a holistic approach

Abstract: This major revision of a critical care text provides students with a solid grasp of the scientific and critical knowledge they need to deliver safe and effective care while caring for the whole patient and his or her family. Beginning with psychosocial concepts of care, the text progresses through assessment and management of a variety of disorders requiring intensive care nursing and provides all the information a nurse needs to know in order to care for patients in the critical care setting. This edition includes expanded coverage of disorders of the core body systems, new chapters on septic shock, acute pancreatitis, and common endocrine disorders, over 50 care plans, case studies, clinical research highlights, chapter study questions - plus a practical handbook for quick and ready reference.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit: Executive summary

Abstract: Objective 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. Methods 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 six years 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 ([www.gradeworkinggroup.org][1]) 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 ([www.esurvey.com][2]). 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 tradeoff 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 conflicts of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. Conclusion 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. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2013; 70:53–8 [1]: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org [2]: http://www.esurvey.com

Family Presence During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Invasive Procedures: Practices of Critical Care and Emergency Nurses

Abstract: • 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. (American Journal of Critical Care. 2003;12:246-257)

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Abstract: Objective: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.Methods:The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task f

The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale Validity and Reliability in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients

Abstract: Sedative medications are widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Structured assessment of sedation and agitation is useful to titrate sedative medications and to evaluate agitated behavior, yet existing sedation scales have limitations. We measured inter-rater reliability and validity of a new 10-level (+4 “combative” to −5 “unarousable”) scale, the Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale (RASS), in two phases. In phase 1, we demonstrated excellent (r = 0.956, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.948; κ = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.75) inter-rater reliability among five investigators (two physicians, two nurses, and one pharmacist) in adult ICU patient encounters (n = 192). Robust inter-rater reliability (r = 0.922–0.983) (κ = 0.64–0.82) was demonstrated for patients from medical, surgical, cardiac surgery, coronary, and neuroscience ICUs, patients with and without mechanical ventilation, and patients with and without sedative medications. In validity testing, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93)...

Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit

Abstract: ContextIn the intensive care unit (ICU), delirium is a common yet underdiagnosed form of organ dysfunction, and its contribution to patient outcomes is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine if delirium is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, including 6-month mortality and length of stay among ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsProspective cohort study enrolling 275 consecutive mechanically ventilated patients admitted to adult medical and coronary ICUs of a US university-based medical center between February 2000 and May 2001. Patients were followed up for development of delirium over 2158 ICU days using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.Main Outcome MeasuresPrimary outcomes included 6-month mortality, overall hospital length of stay, and length of stay in the post-ICU period. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days and cognitive impairment at hospital discharge.ResultsOf 275 patients, 51 (18.5%) had persistent coma and died in the hospital. Among the remaining 224 patients, 183 (81.7%) developed delirium at some point during the ICU stay. Baseline demographics including age, comorbidity scores, dementia scores, activities of daily living, severity of illness, and admission diagnoses were similar between those with and without delirium (P>.05 for all). Patients who developed delirium had higher 6-month mortality rates (34% vs 15%, P = .03) and spent 10 days longer in the hospital than those who never developed delirium (P<.001). After adjusting for covariates (including age, severity of illness, comorbid conditions, coma, and use of sedatives or analgesic medications), delirium was independently associated with higher 6-month mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-7.7; P = .008), and longer hospital stay (adjusted HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.0; P<.001). Delirium in the ICU was also independently associated with a longer post-ICU stay (adjusted HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3; P = .009), fewer median days alive and without mechanical ventilation (19 [interquartile range, 4-23] vs 24 [19-26]; adjusted P = .03), and a higher incidence of cognitive impairment at hospital discharge (adjusted HR, 9.1; 95% CI, 2.3-35.3; P = .002).ConclusionDelirium was an independent predictor of higher 6-month mortality and longer hospital stay even after adjusting for relevant covariates including coma, sedatives, and analgesics in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.