4.4 Article

Variability in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Sweetening Agents in Newborn Infants Undergoing Painful Procedures

Journal

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 153-155

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181847a09

Keywords

sucrose; practice guidelines; pain management; infant/newborn

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. CIHR New Investigator

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Sweetening agents have been recommended in position statements and consensus documents for procedural pain management in neonates; however, it is not clear if this has resulted in widespread adoption in clinical practice. The objective of this Study was to investigate unit-specific protocols for the use of sweetening agents. Methods: Structured telephone survey with qualified personnel in special care (level 11) nurseries and neonatal intensive care (level 111) units across Canada. The frequency and pattern of recommended use of sweetening agents was documented. Results: Eighty-six of 92 units (93.5%) participated. Sixty-four percent recommended sucrose and 2.3% recommended glucose for procedural pain management: 87.7% had a guideline. Sweetening agents were most commonly recommended for venipuncture/venous cannulation (.91.2% for both), lumbar puncture (87.7%,), and heel lance (82.5%). Dosing guidelines ranged from 0.05 mL of 24% sucrose solution to 3 mL of 25% Sucrose Solution. Sweetener,,; were not recommended for infants with necrotizing enterocolitis (77.2%,) or those who were nil per os (75%,). Conclusions: Sweetening agents were recommended for procedural pain management in two-thirds of special care nurseries and neonatal intensive care units across Canada with extensive variability in specific dosing guidelines. Audits of pain management practices should therefore account for unit-specific practice guidelines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available