Psychometric validation of the behavioral indicators of pain scale for the assessment of pain in mechanically ventilated and unable to self-report critical care patients

Appropriateness of behavioural scales in the monitoring of pain in the critically ill patient unable to self-report

Appropriateness is a dimension of quality that evaluates the effective use of technologies, resources or interventions in specific situations or populations, assessing whether our interventions do more benefit than harm. The evidence regarding pain monitoring in the critically ill patient points to the periodic assessment of pain using appropriate tools, with the aim of improving pain management and more efficient use of analgesics in the intensive care unit. The first step would be to assess the patient's ability to communicate or self-report and, based on this, to select the most appropriate pain assessment tool. In patients who are unable to self-report, behavioural pain assessment tools are recommended. When we talk about the suitability of behavioural scales for pain monitoring in critically ill patients unable to self-report, we refer to their use with a clear clinical benefit, i.e. using the right tool for pain assessment to be effective, efficient and consistent with bioethical principles. To our knowledge, there are no published data on the suitability of pain assessment tools in unable to self-report critically ill patients, so, in the framework of continuous quality improvement in pain care, new research should incorporate this approach by integrating the best scientific evidence with current clinical practice.

Pain assessment tools in adults with communication disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Verbal communication is the "gold standard" for assessing pain. Consequently, individuals with communication disorders are particularly vulnerable to incomplete pain management. This review aims at identifying the current pain assessment instruments for adult patients with communication disorders.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted on PubMed, PEDRO, EBSCOhost, VHL and Cochrane databases from 2011 to 2023 using MeSH terms "pain assessment, "nonverbal communication" and "communication disorders" in conjunction with additional inclusion criteria: studies limited to humans, interventions involving adult patients, and empirical investigations.

RESULTS

Fifty articles were included in the review. Seven studies report sufficient data to perform the meta-analysis. Observational scales are the most common instruments to evaluate pain in individuals with communication disorders followed by physiological measures and facial recognition systems. While most pain assessments rely on observational scales, current evidence does not strongly endorse one scale over others for clinical practice. However, specific observational scales appear to be particularly suitable for identifying pain during certain potentially painful procedures, such as suctioning and mobilization, in these populations. Additionally, specific observational scales appear to be well-suited for certain conditions, such as mechanically ventilated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While observational scales dominate pain assessment, no universal tool exists for adults with communication disorders. Specific scales exhibit promise for distinct populations, yet the diverse landscape of tools hampers a one-size-fits-all solution. Crucially, further high-quality research, offering quantitative data like reliability findings, is needed to identify optimal tools for various contexts. Clinicians should be informed to select tools judiciously, recognizing the nuanced appropriateness of each in diverse clinical situations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) with the ID: CRD42022323655 .

The Validity of Vital Signs for Pain Assessment in critically Ill Adults: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Pain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging because many patients are unable to self-report or exhibit pain-related behaviors. In such situations, vital signs (VS) through continuous monitoring are alternative cues for pain assessment. This review aimed to describe the reliability and validity of VS for ICU pain assessment.

DESIGN

Narrative review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane.

REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS

A narrative review was conducted with a comprehensive search in four databases. Search terms included VS, pain assessment, and ICU.

RESULTS

Out of 1,359 results, 30 studies from 17 countries were included. Heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate were most used for ICU pain assessment. Assessments were performed at rest before procedures, during nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures, and after procedures. Increases in respiratory rate were clinically significant by more than 25% during nociceptive procedures (e.g., endotracheal suctioning, turning) compared with rest/pre-procedures in five studies. Correlations of VS with self-reported pain (reference standard measure) and behavioral pain scores (alternative measure) were absent or weak.

CONCLUSIONS

VS are not valid indicators for ICU pain assessment. Increases of respiratory rate may be a cue for the detection of pain. However, fluctuations in respiratory rate can be influenced by opioids or controlled ventilation mode. Our results dissuade the use of VS for pain assessment because of the lack of association with ICU pain reference standards. Other physiologic measures of pain in critically ill adults should be explored.

Pain Behaviors Analyzed by Videorecording in Brain-Injured Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

AIM

To describe and classify pain behaviors (facial and body) in brain-injured patients with a low level of consciousness before, during, and after the performance of painful and non-painful care procedures.

METHODS

Facial behaviors and body movements in brain-injured patients were videotaped at rest, during the application of three care procedures (two painful and one non-painful), and 15 minutes after completion of these procedures. Each video recording was evaluated by expert evaluators blinded to each other. For each of the behaviors observed, all possible combinations between the three procedures and/or time were compared using the McNemar test. Effect size was measured by the difference in proportions using the Wilson score 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were included. The mean (standard deviation) Glasgow Coma Score was 5.4 (1.9). A total of 33 behaviors (29 active, four neutral) were registered. Expression of behaviors was more common during the painful procedures compared with the other time points (non-painful procedures, baseline, and final evaluation). Inter-evaluator agreement was substantial (Kappa index >0.7) in more than 50% of the observed behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study involving brain-injured patients with a low level of consciousness, facial, body, and ventilation-related behaviors were more common during painful procedures. Agreement between evaluators to detect the presence or absence of these behaviors was substantial. These findings underscore the need to develop pain assessment measures specific to this patient population.

The impact of ABCDE bundle implementation on patient outcomes: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The ABCDE bundle is a set of evidence-based practices to systematically reduce the risks of sedation, delirium, and immobility in intensive care patients. Implementing the bundle improves clinical outcome.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between patient outcomes and compliance with bundle components ABC (analgosedation algorithms), D (delirium protocol), and E (early mobilization protocol).

DESIGN

A Spanish multicentre cohort study of adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ≥48 h until extubation.

METHODS

The primary outcome was pain level, cooperation to permit Medical Research Council Scale administration, patient days of delirium, and mobility. The secondary outcome was cumulative drug dosing by IMV days. Tertiary outcomes (ICU days, IMV days, bed rest days, ICU mortality, ICUAW) and independent variables (analgosedation, delirium, early mobilization protocols) were also studied.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 605 patients in 80 ICUs and 5214 patient days with IMV. Two-thirds of the ICUs studied applied no protocols. Pain was not assessed on 83.6% of patient days. Patient cooperation made scale administration feasible on 20.7% of days. Delirium and immobility were found on 4.2% and 69.9% of days, respectively. Patients had shorter stays in ICUs with bundle protocols and fewer days of IMV in ICUs with delirium and mobilization bundle components (P = 0.006 and P = 0.03, respectively). Analgosedation protocols were associated with more opioid dosing (P = 0.02), and delirium and early mobilization protocols with more propofol (P = 0.001), dexmedetomidine (P = 0.001), and lower benzodiazepine dosing (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation rate of ABCDE bundle components was very low in our Spanish setting, but when implemented, patients had a shorter ICU stay, more analgesia dosing, and lighter sedation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Applying some but not all the bundle components, there is increased analgesia and light sedation drug use, decreased benzodiazepines, and increased patient cooperation and mobility, resulting in a shorter ICU stay and fewer days of IMV.

A Psychometric Analysis Update of Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools for Noncommunicative, Critically Ill Adults

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Application of the Behavioural Indicators of Pain Scale in patients with traumatic brain injury

AIM

To develop and psychometrically test the Behavioural Indicators of Pain Scale (ESCID) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

DESIGN

A prospective observational study to test the psychometric properties of the Behavioural Indicators of Pain Scale in patients with TBI.

METHOD

A convenience sample of patients with TBI, who were non-communicative and using invasive mechanical ventilation was selected. Pain was evaluated by two observers who were blinded from each other. Assessments were performed at baseline via the performance of a painful procedure (aspiration of secretions) and a non-painful procedure (rubbing with a gauze). Assessments were repeated after application of procedures on days 1 and 6 of hospitalization in an intensive care unit. Data were collected between January-December 2016.

RESULTS

About 134 patients were included in the study. Of these, 76.1% were men. The mean age of participants was 45.2 (SD 17.5) years. The pain score significantly increased during the painful procedure when compared with the baseline measure and non-painful procedure (p < .001). Patients displayed a greater number of pain-indicating behaviours during the painful procedure on day 6, compared with day 1 (p < .05). This finding coincided with a reduced level of sedation and a greater level of consciousness.

CONCLUSION

The ESCID scale detects pain behaviours and discriminates among the different types of stimulation in patients with brain injury, who are uncommunicative and with mechanical ventilation, with good reliability. The ability for patients with brain injury to express behaviours is limited because of the low level of consciousness and the deep level of sedation.

IMPACT

This research will have an impact on the practice of pain assessment in patients with brain injury, representing a first step to adapt the content of the ESCID.

Strategies for Pain Assessment in Adult Patients With Delirium: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT

Pain and delirium are highly prevalent in the same patient groups. Disturbances in attention, awareness, and cognition are characteristics for delirium and can compromise pain assessment.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to examine and map models and understandings of pain and delirium as well as pain assessment instruments and strategies for adult patients with delirium.

METHODS

A scoping review of all publications that reported on pain assessment in adult patients with delirium was conducted with no time and language constraints, searching Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and PsycINFO and systematically assessing for inclusion. Standardized data extraction and a narrative synthesis followed.

RESULTS

A total of 90 publications were included in the final analysis. Despite being recommended for practice, no evidence for the use of self-report or behavioral pain assessment instruments in patients with delirium was identified, with the exception of limited evidence for the validity of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and Behavioral Pain Scale in delirious intensive care patients. Proxy ratings of pain and comprehensive pain assessment hierarchies were also recommended, but not supported by evidence. Current models and/or understandings of pain and delirium were not applied in most publications.

CONCLUSION

The current literature is insufficient to guide clinical practice in pain assessment in patients with delirium. Future research will be needed to address the validity of existing pain assessment instruments, apply theoretical and conceptual understandings of pain and delirium, and build on prior studies to close evidence gaps.

Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units. Proyecto ASCyD

AIMS

Main aim: To determine the Spanish intensive care units (ICU) that assess and record pain levels, sedation/agitation, delirium and the use of physical restraint (PR) as standard practice. Secondary aims: To determine the use of validated assessment tools and to explore patients' levels of pain and sedation/agitation, the prevalence of delirium, and the use of PR.

METHOD

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study using an ad hoc survey with online access that consisted of 2 blocks. Block I: with questions on the unit's characteristics and routine practice; Block II: aspects of direct care and direct assessments of patients admitted to participating units.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight units and 1574 patients participated. The pain of communicative patients (CP) was assessed and recorded as standard in 109 units (69%), the pain of non-communicative patients (NCP) in 84 (53%), sedation/agitation in 111 (70%), and delirium in 39 units (25%). There was recorded use of PR in 39 units (25%). Validated scales were used to assess the pain of CP in 139 units (88%), of NCP in 102 (65%), sedation/agitation in 145 (92%), delirium in 53 units (34%). In 33 units (21%) pain, sedation/agitation and delirium of PC and NPC was assessed, and in 8 of these units there was a specific PR protocol and register. Among the patients who could be assessed, an absence of pain was reported in 57%, moderate pain in 27%; 48% were calm and collaborative, and 10% agitated; 21% had PR, and 12.6% of the patients had delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of pain, sedation and delirium is demonstrated, and low percentages of agitation and delirium achieved. We observed a high percentage of patients with pain, and moderate use of PC. We should generalise the use of protocols to assess, prevent and treat pain and delirium by appropriately managing analgesia, sedation, and individual and well-considered use of PC. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03773874).

Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated, Noncommunicative Severe Trauma Patients

The aim of this study was to measure pain levels in noncommunicative patients with severe trauma who required tracheal suctioning and mobilization and to determine the utility of the Behavioral Indicators of Pain Scale (ESCID) in these cases. The pain scores for the procedures were recorded on Days 1, 3, and 6 of the patients' stay in the intensive care unit. These assessments were performed at 3 moments: before, during, and after the application of the procedures. Because of the longitudinal character of the study, data were fitted into a multivariate model using the Generalized Estimating Equations method. The sample of 124 patients comprised 77.4% males and 22.6% females with an average age of 45.93 (SD = 16.43) years. A significant increase (p < .01) in the ESCID score was observed during the application of the procedures that produced similar pain levels. Kappa coefficient value obtained for interobserver agreement of ESCID scale scores during the application of care procedures at the intervals being evaluated was greater than 0.84, which should be interpreted as almost perfect. The ESCID scores increased during 2 care procedures that are frequently carried out in intensive care units and indicated that they produced similar pain levels.

The early diagnosis and management of mixed delirium in a patient placed on ECMO and with difficult sedation: A case report

Delirium represents a serious problem that impacts the physical and cognitive prognosis of patients admitted to intensive care units and requires prompt diagnosis and management. This article describes the case and progress of a patient placed on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation with difficult sedation criteria and an early diagnosis of mixed delirium. During the case report, we reflect on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies employed to cope with delirium paying special attention to the non-use of physical restraint measures in order to preserve vital support devices (endotracheal tube or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation cannula). The multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, focused on nursing interventions, strict Pain/Agitation/Delirium monitoring and pharmacological measures, as well as the implementation of measures according to the eCASH (early Comfort using Analgesia, minimal Sedatives and maximal Human Care) concept, were effective, resulting in a relatively short admission considering the severity of the patient's condition and the associated complications. Early independent ambulation was achieved prior to transfer to a hospitalisation unit.