Pain Assessment Scale for Patients With Disorders of Consciousness: A Preliminary Validation Study

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 .

Assessment and management of pain/nociception in patients with disorders of consciousness or locked-in syndrome: A narrative review

The assessment and management of pain and nociception is very challenging in patients unable to communicate functionally such as patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) or in locked-in syndrome (LIS). In a clinical setting, the detection of signs of pain and nociception by the medical staff is therefore essential for the wellbeing and management of these patients. However, there is still a lot unknown and a lack of clear guidelines regarding the assessment, management and treatment of pain and nociception in these populations. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the current knowledge regarding this issue by covering different topics such as: the neurophysiology of pain and nociception (in healthy subjects and patients), the source and impact of nociception and pain in DoC and LIS and, finally, the assessment and treatment of pain and nociception in these populations. In this review we will also give possible research directions that could help to improve the management of this specific population of severely brain damaged patients.

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.

Development of a Measure of Nociception for Patients With Severe Brain Injury

OBJECTIVES

Severe brain injury is often accompanied by painful comorbidities and by concurrent limitations in the ability to report pain. Assessment of nociception aids diagnosis and helps balance reduction in suffering with avoidance of sedating medications. Existing assessment methods confound patients' level of consciousness with the intensity of nociception, complicating pain assessment as consciousness evolves. We sought to develop a measure of nociception that is independent of the level of consciousness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 15 behavioral and physiological items likely to be sensitive to nociception. We rated noncommunicative patients with traumatic brain injury in 4 different activities predicted to modulate nociception, on each of 2 days, one randomly chosen for acetaminophen administration. The level of consciousness and level of agitation were also measured.

RASCH ANALYSIS

Rasch analysis was used to assess item fit to an underlying dimension of nociception.

RESULTS

Five items that demonstrated poor fit to the dimension were removed. The 10 remaining items demonstrated acceptable fit. Scores were significantly influenced by activity and analgesic treatment and were largely independent of measures of consciousness and agitation. Accurate scores could be obtained in about 10 minutes and were robust to missing data.

DISCUSSION

The results provide evidence that the Brain Injury Nociception Assessment Measure (BINAM) is reliable and feasible to administer. It can assess the intensity of nociception largely independent of the level of consciousness. Further research is warranted on the impact of BINAM use on the care of patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

Nociception Coma Scale-Revised: Nurses' Experience in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised (NCS-R) is a rating scale developed and validated for measurement of nociception and pain among patients with brain injuries in unresponsive wakefulness syndrome or minimally conscious state. However, little is known about its use in daily clinical practice.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to explore clinical experience with the NCS-R by means of focus group interviews with nurses and nurse assistants in a subacute rehabilitation ward for patients with severe brain injuries.

DESIGN

Qualitative focus group interview study.

SETTINGS

Department for highly specialized neurorehabilitation for patients with severe brain injuries.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

Nurses and nurse assistants.

METHODS

In total, 12 experienced registered nurses and nurse assistants participated in two recorded focus group interviews. The participants were selected from the subacute neurorehabilitation ward on the following criteria: Employed at the ward for at least 11 months and being introduced to and having experience with using the NCS-R in own patients for a minimum period of 6 months. An inductive qualitative analysis was conducted by reading the interview text through several times, and meaning units were defined first separately and later jointly between the authors. Then meaning units were coded and categorized into subthemes and themes.

RESULTS

We found three themes, general relevance of the NCS-R, NCS-R versus level of consciousness, and overall assessment of pain in patients with disorders of consciousness, with a total of eight subthemes.

CONCLUSIONS

The content and subscales of the NCS-R are relevant for pain assessment in patients with severe brain injury in subacute rehabilitation. However, with the present cutoff value at 4 points, challenges are associated with using NCS-R, especially in patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome because they are at risk of not being assessed with respect to pain.