To Örebro University

Purpose This study aims to analyze global prescribing patterns for analgosedation in neonates during four critical care scenarios. The research explores existing patterns, their association with geographic and sociodemographic index (SDI), and adherence to evidence-based practices.

Methods Data from a 2024 global survey of 924 responses to 28 questions were analyzed, focusing on four items for their high variability: premedication in intubation (Q17), sedation in preterm (Q19) and full-term newborns (Q23), and perinatal asphyxia (Q26). Latent class analysis (LCA) classified neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) prescriptions into patterns, assigning participants to the most likely class. Demographic variables, including geographic region and SDI, were compared using chi-square tests to assess associations.

Results Three distinct prescribing patterns emerged for each scenario. In premedication during intubation, Europe and North America predominantly used Class 1, adhering to guidelines with fentanyl, atropine, and muscle relaxants. In contrast, Class 2, standard in Asia and Latin America-Caribbean, primarily utilized fentanyl and midazolam, with rare use of atropine and muscle relaxants. For analgosedation in newborns, higher-SDI NICUs favored fentanyl, while lower-SDI NICUs preferred midazolam or morphine combinations. In perinatal asphyxia cases, fentanyl was the leading choice in Class 3, especially in Europe. Dexmedetomidine use was limited, primarily appearing in Class 1 NICUs. 

Conclusion The study highlights substantial regional variability in neonatal analgosedation, influenced by SDI and geography. Despite established guidelines, gaps in evidence-based implementation persist. These findings underscore the need for global standardization of neonatal care protocols and further research on the long-term safety of midazolam and dexmedetomidine. 

Background: There is variability in the use of sedatives and analgesics in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). We aimed to investigate the use of analgesics and sedatives and the management of neonatal pain and distress.

Methods: This was a global, prospective, cross-sectional study. A survey was distributed May–November 2022. The primary outcome of this research was to compare results between countries depending on their socio-sanitary level using the sociodemographic index (SDI). We organized results based on geographical location.

Results: The survey collected 1304 responses, but we analyzed 924 responses after database cleaning. Responses from 98 different countries were analyzed. More than 60% of NICUs reported having an analgosedation guideline, and one-third of respondents used neonatal pain scales in more than 80% of neonates. We found differences in the management of sedation and analgesia between NICUs on different continents, but especially between countries with different SDIs. Countries with a higher SDI had greater availability of and adherence to analgosedation guidelines, as well as higher rates of analgosedation for painful or distressing procedures. Countries with different SDIs reported differences in analgosedation for neonatal intubation, invasive ventilation, and therapeutic hypothermia, among others.

Conclusions: Socio-economic status of countries impacts on neonatal analgosedation management.

AIMS: To investigate registered nurses' (RNs') and physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding assessing and managing pain in infants at seven level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Sweden.

DESIGN: Descriptive and explorative study using an online questionnaire.

METHODS: A researcher-developed online questionnaire with 34 items about knowledge, attitudes, and experiences regarding pain assessment and management was emailed to 306 RNs and 79 physicians working at seven neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in Sweden.

RESULTS: Most NICUs had pain assessment guidelines, but there was a discrepancy regarding interprofessional discussions of pain assessments. A total of seven different pain assessment instruments were reported from the included NICUs and RNs were reportedly those who usually performed the pain assessments. Most respondents expressed a positive attitude toward pain assessment but recognized a lack of intervention after the assessment. Forty-six percent (n = 11) of the physicians said they had sufficient knowledge of assessing pain using pain assessment instruments, versus 75% (n = 110) of the RNs. Difficulties assessing pain in certain populations of infants, such as the most premature infants and infants receiving sedative medicines, were recognized.

CONCLUSIONS: RNs in this study reported that their pain assessments did not lead to appropriate pain management interventions. They were thus discouraged from further pain assessments or advocating for ethical pain management. An interprofessional team effort is needed to effectively assess and manage pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: The use of measurement scales to assess pain in neonates is considered a prerequisite for effective management of pain, but these scales are still underutilised in clinical practice.

AIM: The aim of this study was to describe and compare pain assessment practices including the use of pain measurement scales in Norwegian and Swedish neonatal care units.

METHODS: A unit survey investigating practices regarding pain assessment and the use of pain measurement scales was sent to all neonatal units in Sweden and Norway (n = 55). All Norwegian and 92% of Swedish units responded.

RESULTS: A majority of the participating units (86.5%) assessed pain. Swedish units assessed and documented pain and used pain measurement scales more frequently than Norwegian units. The most frequently used scales were different versions of Astrid Lindgren's Pain Scale (ALPS) in Sweden and Echelle Douleur Inconfort Noveau-Ne (EDIN), ALPS and Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) in Norway. Norwegian head nurses had more confidence in their pain assessment method and found the use of pain measurement scales more important than their Swedish colleagues.

CONCLUSION: The persisting difference between Swedish and Norwegian units in pain assessment and the use of pain measurement scales are not easily explained. However, the reported increased availability and reported use of pain measurement scales in neonatal care units in both countries may be seen as a contribution towards better awareness and recognition of pain, better pain management and potentially less suffering for vulnerable neonates.

Aim: This study investigated the effects of skin-to-skin contact on breastfeeding attainment, duration and infant growth in preterm infants, as this has not been sufficiently explored.

Methods: A prospective longitudinal study on Kangaroo mother care was carried out, comprising 104 infants with a gestational age of 28+0 to 33+6 and followed up to one year of corrected age. Parents and staff recorded the duration of skin-to skin contact during the stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Medical data were collected through patient records and follow-up questionnaires were filled in by parents.

Results: The 53 infants who attained full breastfeeding in the NICU did so at a median (range) of 35+0 (32+1 to 37+5) weeks of postmenstrual age and skin-to-skin contact was the only factor that influenced earlier attainment in the regression analysis (R(2) 0.215 p<0.001). The daily duration of skin-to-skin contact during the stay in the NICU did not affect the duration of breastfeeding or infant growth after discharge. Furthermore, infant growth was not affected by the feeding strategy of exclusive, partial breastfeeding or no breastfeeding.

Conclusion: A longer daily duration of skin-to-skin contact in the NICU was associated with earlier attainment of exclusive breastfeeding.

Background: It has been proposed that a systematic pain assessment increases the awareness of the need to treat and prevent pain, and most international and national neonatal pain guidelines state that pain assessment should be performed in a systematic way. National surveys show a wide variation in compliance to these guidelines.

Methods: A survey to all Swedish neonatal units was performed in 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, concerning the use of, and need for, pain assessment tools.

Results: The number of units that tried to assess pain increased from 64% in 1993 to 83% in 2008. Forty-four per cent of these used a structured method in 2003, compared to three per cent in 1998. The most common pain indicator was facial actions.

Conclusion: The proportion of neonatal units that reported the use of a structured pain assessment tool has increased significantly from 1993 to 2008. There is a need for better evidence for the relation between the implementation of pain guidelines and the actual performance of pain assessment.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the degree to which Swedish neonatal units have adopted the national guidelines for prevention and treatment of pain in newborn infants. METHOD: A survey was sent to all units in Sweden that provide neonatal care. For a list of potentially painful procedures, compiled from the national neonatal pain guidelines, the units were asked if they would use pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions, and in each case to specify the treatment. RESULTS: The response rate was 80.4%. Eighty-eight percent of the units had written guidelines for pain management, and 59% of these had been updated within the last 2 years. For almost every presented case, all units reported that they used either pharmacological or behavioural treatment or both. The survey showed a wide variation in morphine and paracetamol dosing and the absence of a paracetamol loading dose in a fourth of the units. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a majority of Swedish neonatal units have adopted pain management guidelines in concordance with the Swedish national guidelines, and kept them up-to-date. For most painful situations a variety of behavioural and pharmacological interventions are used, often in combination.