Validation and evaluation of two observational pain assessment tools in a trauma and neurosurgical intensive care unit

Accuracy of Pain Scales in Predicting Critical Diagnoses in Non-Traumatic Abdominal Pain Cases; a Cross-sectional Study

Introduction

Accurate assessment and management of abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) is crucial, as it can indicate potentially life-threatening conditions requiring timely treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of pain scales to predict critical diagnoses in patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary university hospital and involved individuals aged 15 years and above who presented to the ED with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Pain severity was evaluated using subjective pain scales, including the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Face Pain Scale (FPS), as well as objective pain scales, including the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and the Non-verbal Pain Score (NVPS). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) was employed to determine the discriminative ability of each pain scale to predict critical diagnosis.

Results

264 cases with the mean age of 47.2±19.4 years were studied (53.0% male). The most common location of abdominal pain was epigastric pain (43.9%). Most patients presented with dull-aching pain, and those with critical diagnoses had more of this characteristic than those with non-critical diagnoses. (52.5% vs. 28.3%, p = 0.01). The overall median NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS of included participants were 8 (interquartile range (IQR) 7-10), 8 (IQR 6-8), 3 (IQR 1-4), and 3 (IQR 2-4), respectively. Patients with critical diagnoses had a higher NVPS score than patients with non-critical diagnoses (median score of 4 vs. 3, p = 0.02). The AuROC of NRS, FPS, CPOT, and NVPS were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.45-0.62), 0.55 (95% CI: 0.46-0.63), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50-0.68), and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.53-0.71), respectively. The correlation coefficients among these scales were considered moderately correlated or higher.

Conclusion

In evaluating patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain, the NVPS demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting critical diagnoses. However, all pain scales, whether subjective or objective, exhibited suboptimal performance in predicting critical diagnoses.

Evaluation of Pain Scales and Outcome in Critically Ill Patients of a Greek ICU

The purpose of the study was to evaluate painful procedures in ICU patients and to investigate their effect as well as the role of analgesia in the outcome. We measured pain level and vital signs before, during and after potentially painful procedures by using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). We analyzed the correlation of these measurements and of analgesia with the outcome. Twenty-eight patients were subjected to 160 stimuli. There were statistically significant differences in pain scores and most vital signs between the different timepoints (before-during, during-after). Most of them were significantly correlated with each other. Physiotherapy proved to be the most painful procedure. Regarding the outcome, the administration of extra analgesia predicted less days of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.015) and of ICU stay (p = 0.016). The higher change in BPS was correlated with more days of mechanical ventilation [B (95% CI) = 3.640 (1.001-6.280), p = 0.007] and of ICU stay [B (95% CI) = 3.645 (1.035-6.254), p = 0.006]. The higher change in CPOT and the nonuse of extra analgesia were related to increased mortality [OR (95% CI) = 1.492 (1.107-2.011), p = 0.009 and OR (95% CI) = 2.626 (1.013-6.806), p = 0.047]. Increased pain in ICU patients was successfully assessed by the BPS and CPOT and correlated to worse outcomes, which the administration of extra analgesia might improve.

Validation Testing of the European Portuguese Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool

Aim. The study aim was to validate the Portuguese version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in the critically ill adult population of Portugal. Methods. A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted to evaluate the CPOT in mechanically ventilated patients who were admitted to an intensive care unit. A consecutive sample of 110 patients was observed at rest pre-procedure, during a nociceptive procedure (NP) which includes turning/positioning and endotracheal or tracheal suctioning and 20 min post-procedure. Two raters participated in the data collection. The discriminative validity, criterion validity, convergent validity and inter-rater reliability of the CPOT were examined. Results. The inter-rater reliability was excellent (0.93 ≤ α ≤ 1.00) at rest and fair to moderate (0.39 ≤ α ≤ 0.60) during the NP. The CPOT could discriminate between conditions with higher scores during the NP when compared to CPOT scores at rest (p < 0.001). The optimal CPOT cut-off score was >2, with a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 80%, and self-reported pain was the gold standard criterion. Significant correlations (<0.40) were found between CPOT scores, the heart rate and the respiratory rate during the nociceptive procedure. Conclusions. The CPOT appears to be a valid alternative for both ventilated and non-ventilated patients who are unable to communicate.

Pain assessment of the adult sedated and ventilated patients in the intensive care setting: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pain is frequently encountered in the intensive care setting. Given the impact of pain assessment on patient outcomes and length of hospital stay, studies have been conducted to validate tools, establish guidelines and cast light on practices relating to pain assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of the evidence around pain assessment practices in adult patients who cannot self-report pain in the intensive care setting and summarise the findings from a heterogenous body of evidence to aid in the planning and the conduct of future research and management of patient care. The specific patient cohort studied was the sedated/ ventilated patient within the intensive care setting.

DESIGN

A scoping review protocol utilised the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping review checklist (PRISMA-ScR).

METHODS

The review comprised of five phases: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Databases were systematically searched from January to April 2020. Databases included were Scopus, Web of Science, Medline via Ovid, CINAHL COMPLETE via EBSCO host, Health Source and PUBMED. Limits were applied on dates (2000 to current), language (English), subject (human) and age (adult). Key words used were "pain", "assessment", "measurement", "tools", "instruments", "practices", "sedated", "ventilated", "adult". A hand search technique was used to search citations within articles. Database alerts were set to apprise the availability of research articles pertaining to pain assessment practices in the intensive care setting.

RESULTS

The review uncovered literature categorised under five general themes: behaviour pain assessment tools, pain assessment guidelines, position statements and quality improvement projects, enablers and barriers to pain assessment, and evidence appertaining to actual practices. Behaviour pain assessment tools are the benchmark for pain assessment of sedated and ventilated patients. The reliability and validity of physiologic parameters to assess pain is yet to be determined. Issues of compliance with pain assessment guidelines and tools exist and impact on practices. In some countries like Australia, there is a dearth of information regarding the prevalence and characteristics of patients receiving analgesia, type of analgesia used, pain assessment practices and the process of recording pain management. In general, pain assessment varies across different intensive care settings and lacks consistency.

CONCLUSION

Research on pain assessment practices requires further investigation to explore the causative mechanisms that contribute to poor compliance with established pain management guidelines. The protocol of this review was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/25a6) Tweetable abstract: Pain assessment in intensive care settings lacks consistency. New information is needed to understand the causative mechanisms underpinning poor compliance with guidelines.

Authorized Agent-Controlled Analgesia for Pain Management in Critically Ill Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia is commonly used for adult patients requiring parenteral opioid analgesia in the postoperative setting. However, many patients are unable to use patient-controlled analgesia because of physical or cognitive limitations. Authorized agent-controlled analgesia, in which a nurse or family member activates the patient-controlled analgesia device, has been studied in the pediatric population but has received little attention in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of authorized agent-controlled analgesia in critically ill adult patients.

METHODS

A retrospective pilot study was conducted involving 46 patients who were placed on an authorized agent-controlled analgesia protocol in a mixed medical/surgical adult intensive care unit. Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores were abstracted for the 24 hours before and after initiation of authorized agent-controlled analgesia. Authorized agent-controlled analgesia was administered by nurses only.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) change in pain score was -3.4 (2.0) (95% CI, -4.0 to -2.7), representing a 69% decrease in the mean (SD) pain score from before to after initiation of authorized agent-controlled analgesia (4.8 [1.8] vs 1.5 [1.6]; P < .001). When the results were controlled for time, sedative administration, and opioid medication administration, the effect of authorized agent-controlled analgesia initiation on pain scores remained significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of authorized agent-controlled analgesia is associated with a reduction in pain in critically ill patients. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool-Neuro in brain-injured adults in the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study

Background

Pain assessment in brain-injured patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging and existing scales may not be representative of behavioral reactions expressed by this specific group. This study aimed to validate the French-Canadian and English revised versions of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT-Neuro) for brain-injured ICU patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted in three Canadian and one American sites. Patients with a traumatic or a non-traumatic brain injury were assessed with the CPOT-Neuro by trained raters (i.e., research staff and ICU nurses) before, during, and after nociceptive procedures (i.e., turning and other) and non-nociceptive procedures (i.e., non-invasive blood pressure, soft touch). Patients who were conscious and delirium-free were asked to provide their self-report of pain intensity (0–10). A first data set was completed for all participants (n = 226), and a second data set (n = 87) was obtained when a change in the level of consciousness (LOC) was observed after study enrollment. Three LOC groups were included: (a) unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS 4–8); (b) altered LOC (GCS 9–12); and (c) conscious (GCS 13–15).

Results

Higher CPOT-Neuro scores were found during nociceptive procedures compared to rest and non-nociceptive procedures in both data sets (p < 0.001). CPOT-Neuro scores were not different across LOC groups. Moderate correlations between CPOT-Neuro and self-reported pain intensity scores were found at rest and during nociceptive procedures (Spearman rho > 0.40 and > 0.60, respectively). CPOT-Neuro cut-off scores ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 were found to adequately classify mild to severe self-reported pain ≥ 1 and moderate to severe self-reported pain ≥ 5, respectively. Interrater reliability of raters’ CPOT-Neuro scores was supported with intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.69.

Conclusions

The CPOT-Neuro was found to be valid in this multi-site sample of brain-injured ICU patients at various LOC. Implementation studies are necessary to evaluate the tool’s performance in clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03561-1.

Assessing pain in critically ill brain-injured patients: a psychometric comparison of 3 pain scales and videopupillometry

Three clinical scales (the Nociception Coma Scale adapted for Intubated patients [NCS-I], its Revised version [NCS-R-I], and the Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and videopupillometry were compared for measuring pain in intubated, noncommunicating, critically ill, brain-injured patients. Pain assessment was performed before, during, just after, and 5 minutes after 3 procedures: the reference non-nociceptive procedure (assessment of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and 2 nociceptive procedures (turning and tracheal suctioning). The primary endpoint was construct validity (discriminant and criterion validation), determined by comparing pain measurements between different times/procedures. Secondary endpoints were internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and feasibility. Fifty patients (54% women, median age 63 years [56-68]) were included 13 [7-24] days after brain injury (76% hemorrhagic or ischemic strokes). All tools increased significantly more (P < 0.001) during the nociceptive procedures vs the non-nociceptive procedure. The BPS was the only pain tool that did not increase significantly during the non-nociceptive procedure (P = 0.41), suggesting that it was the most discriminant tool. The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I were good predictors of nociception with areas under the curves ≥0.96, contrary to videopupillometry (area under the curve = 0.67). The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-I-R had high inter-rater reliabilities (weighted kappa = 0.86, 0.82 and 0.84, respectively). Internal consistency was moderate (>0.60) for all pain scales. Factor analysis represented a majority of information on a first dimension, with motor domains represented on a second dimension. Scale feasibility was better for the NCS-I and NCS-R-I than for the BPS. In conclusion, the BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I are valid, reliable, and acceptable pain scales for use in intubated critically ill, brain-injured patients, unlike videopupillometry. Future research requires tool design centered on domains of observation adapted to this very specific population.

Behavioral Pain Scale and Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for pain evaluation in orotracheally tubed critical patients. A systematic review of the literature

Objective:

To describe the appropriateness of two behavioral scales, the Behavioral Pain Scale and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool, for pain assessment in orotracheally intubated patients admitted to intensive care units.

Method:

Using the methodology recommended by the Cochrane Center, a systematic literature review was performed in the electronic database EBSCO Host (CINAHL Complete; MEDLINE® Complete; Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Methodology Register; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; MedicLatina). Two searches were conducted using the following English terms in the search field: “behavioral pain scale” AND “critical care pain observation tool” AND “behavioral pain scale” OR “critical care pain observation tool”. Two independent reviewers performed the critical evaluation and data extraction and synthesis.

Results:

Fifteen studies were included that showed that the Behavioral Pain Scale and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool are valid and reliable scales for pain assessment in orotracheally intubated patients admitted to the intensive care unit. The scales showed similar psychometric properties and good reliability.

Conclusion:

Both scales are adequate for assessing pain in orotracheally intubated patients admitted to intensive care units; however, they exhibit limitations in specific populations, such as trauma, burn and neurosurgical patients. Further studies on the subject and in specific populations are suggested.

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.

Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self-Report: Clinical Practice Recommendations in Support of the ASPMN 2019 Position Statement

Pain is a subjective experience, unfortunately, some patients cannot provide a self-report of pain verbally, in writing, or by other means. In patients who are unable to self-report pain, other strategies must be used to infer pain and evaluate interventions. In support of the ASPMN position statement "Pain Assessment in the Patient Unable to Self-Report", this paper provides clinical practice recommendations for five populations in which difficulty communicating pain often exists: neonates, toddlers and young children, persons with intellectual disabilities, critically ill/unconscious patients, older adults with advanced dementia, and patients at the end of life. Nurses are integral to ensuring assessment and treatment of these vulnerable populations.

P-CPOT: An Adaptation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool for Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients

BACKGROUND

The Pediatric Critical-Care Observation Tool (P-CPOT) is an adaption of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) originally designed to assess pain in nonverbal critically-ill adults.

AIM

The study validated the P-CPOT in assessing nociceptive procedure pain in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) children who are unable to verbalize pain.

METHODS

Content validity was tested using a two-round expert panel review with 8 experts. With a sample of 78 PICU patients, prospective repeated measures were designed to detect the change over time at pre- (T1), during (T2), and post- (T3) for routinely scheduled nociceptive procedures. Each measure was independently completed by two raters using two scales, the P-CPOT and the FLACC (Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability).

RESULTS

All categories had Item-level content validity indices of 0.88 to 1.00. A one-factor structure containing 5 items was established and accounted for 85% variance in P-CPOT scores. Inter-rater reliability was substantial with correlation coefficient of 0.996 and Kappa value of 0.90. A threshold value of 4 resulted in excellent balance between sensitivity (98.6%) and specificity (97.6%). Both tools detected the score changes over time (p = .025). P-CPOT had a larger effect size (Cohen's d = 4.1) as well as a higher score than FLACC at T2 (p = .039). Linear regression revealed that patients being ventilated tended to have a P-CPOT score of 1.1 higher than the FLACC score while controlling for heart rates (p < .001), meaning that P-CPOT is more sensitive than FLACC for detecting pain increase during nociceptive procedures in ventilated patients.

CONCLUSION

The P-CPOT is a valid scale for assessing pain in PICU patients with very good psychometric performance. It is especially adept in detecting pain in ventilated patients.

Pain measurement techniques: spotlight on mechanically ventilated patients

Background

Procedural pain is a frequent problem in intensive care units (ICUs). For that, pain assessment has been increasingly introduced to the ICU professional’s routine, and studies have been developed to show the relevance of measuring pain in critically ill patients.

Objective

This review aimed to describe pain measurement techniques for mechanically ventilated adult patients based on evidence and already published.

Method

Systematic literature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Keywords “pain”, “pain measurement”, “intensive care units” and “respiration, artificial” were combined to the Boolean operator AND. No language or publication year was limited in this search. The purpose and method of all papers were analyzed and only studies which described pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients were included in this review.

Results

Objective methods were found in the literature to assess pain in mechanically ventilated adults. Behavioral scales were the most used method for pain measurement in noncommunicative patients. Vital signs were used, but the reliability of this method was questioned. Pupillometry, bispectral index and skin conductance were found and described as pain assessment methods.

Conclusion

This review showed that objective measures, as behavioral scales, are the gold standard tools to measure pain intensity in noncommunicative subjects. These data contribute to professionals’ knowledge about ICU pain measurement and emphasize its importance and consequences for adequate pain management.

Use of the critical-care pain observation tool and the bispectral index for the detection of pain in brain-injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A STROBE-compliant observational study

The assessment of pain in patients with brain injury is challenging due to impaired ability to communicate. We aimed to test the reliability and validity of the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the bispectral index (BIS) for pain detection in critically brain-injured patients.This prospective observational study was conducted in a neurosurgical intensive care unit in a University-Affiliated Hospital. Adult brain-injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation were enrolled. Nociceptive (endotracheal suctioning) and non-nociceptive (gentle touching) procedures were performed in a random crossover fashion. Before and immediately after the procedure, CPOT was evaluated by 2 residents and 2 chief nurses, and BIS was documented. The ability to self-report pain was also assessed. The inter-observer reliability of CPOT was analyzed. The criterion and discriminant validities of the CPOT and the BIS were tested.During the study, we enrolled 400 brain-injured patients. The ability to self-report pain was maintained in 214 (54%) and 218 (55%) patients during suctioning and gentle touching, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-observer reliability of CPOT ranged from 0.86 (0.83-0.89) to 0.93 (0.91-0.94). Using self-reported pain as the reference, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% confidence interval) was 0.84 (0.80-0.88) for CPOT and 0.76 (0.72-0.81) for BIS. When the 2 instruments were combined as either CPOT ≥2 or BIS ≥88 after the procedure, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (0.85-0.93) and 0.59 (0.52-0.66), respectively; and when the 2 instruments were combined as both CPOT ≥2 and BIS ≥88, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 (0.55-0.68) and 0.89 (0.83-0.93). Both CPOT and BIS increased significantly after suctioning (all P < .001) but remained unchanged after gentle touching (P ranging from .06 to .14).Our criterion and discriminant validity results supported the use of CPOT and BIS to detect pain in critically brain-injured patients. Combining use of CPOT and BIS in different ways might provide comprehensive pain assessment for different purposes.

Reliability of three linguistically and culturally validated pain assessment tools for sedated ICU patients by ICU nurses in Finland

Background and aims:

Pain assessment in intensive care is challenging, especially when the patients are sedated. Sedated patients who cannot communicate verbally are at risk of suffering from pain that remains unnoticed without careful pain assessment. Some tools have been developed for use with sedated patients. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and the Nonverbal Adult Pain Assessment Scale (NVPS) have shown promising psychometric qualities. We translated and culturally adapted these three tools for the Finnish intensive care environment. The objective of this feasibility study was to test the reliability of the three pain assessment tools translated into Finnish for use with sedated intensive care patients.

Methods:

Six sedated intensive care patients were videorecorded while they underwent two procedures: an endotracheal suctioning was the nociceptive procedure, and the non-nociceptive treatment was creaming of the feet. Eight experts assessed the patients’ pain by observing video recordings. They assessed the pain using four instruments: the BPS, the CPOT and the NVPS, and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) served as a control instrument. Each expert assessed the patients’ pain at five measurement points: (1) right before the procedure, (2) during the endotracheal suctioning, (3) during rest (4) during the creaming of the feet, and (5) after 20 min of rest. Internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the tools were evaluated. After 6 months, the video recordings were evaluated for testing the test-retest reliability.

Results:

Using the BPS, the CPOT, the NVPS and the NRS, 960 assessments were obtained. Internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient varied greatly with all the instruments. The lowest values were seen at those measurement points where the pain scores were 0. The highest scores were achieved after the endotracheal suctioning at rest: for the BPS, the score was 0.86; for the CPOT, 0.96; and for the NVPS, 0.90. The inter-rater reliability using the Shrout-Fleiss intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) tests showed the best results after the painful procedure and during the creaming. The scores were slightly lower for the BPS compared to the CPOT and the NVPS. The test-retest results using the Bland-Altman plots show that all instruments gave similar results.

Conclusions:

To our knowledge, this is the first time all three behavioral pain assessment tools have been evaluated in the same study in a language other than English or French. All three tools had good internal consistency, but it was better for the CPOT and the NVPS compared to the BPS. The inter-rater reliability was best for the NVPS. The test-retest reliability was strongest for the CPOT. The three tools proved to be reliable for further testing in clinical use.

Implications:

There is a need for feasible, valid and reliable pain assessment tools for pain assessment of sedated ICU patients in Finland. This was the first time the psychometric properties of these tools were tested in Finnish use. Based on the results, all three instruments could be tested further in clinical use for sedated ICU patients in Finland.

The Critical care Pain Observation Tool is reliable in non-agitated but not in agitated intubated patients

OBJECTIVE

The Critical-Care Pain.

OBSERVATION

Tool is one of the instruments developed to assess pain in patients who are unable to communicate verbally. The study aimed to survey the psychometric properties of Critical-Care Pain.

OBSERVATION

Tool in four groups of non-verbal patients according to their Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

65 critically ill patients (medical, surgical, trauma) were assessed using the critical care pain observation tool on six occasions (before, during and after nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures). Patients were divided into four groups according to their RASS score: 1. All patients (RASS -3 to +2), 2. Sedated patients (RASS -3 to -1), 3. Restless patients (RASS +1), 4. Agitated patients (RASS +2).

RESULTS

Discriminant and criterion validity, confirmatory factor analysis and internal reliability showed good validity and reliability in the critical care pain observation tool in all groups except agitated patients. The results showed that, in general, the CPOT has good version of the critical care pain observation tool has good psychometric properties to evaluate pain in non-verbal patients admitted to intensive care units who have a RASS score ranging from -3 to +1, but it is not a good tool to evaluate pain in patients who are agitated according to RASS.

Pain Assessment in Noncommunicative Adult Palliative Care Patients

Palliative care patients who have pain are often unable to self-report their pain, placing them at increased risk for underrecognized and undertreated pain. Use of appropriate pain assessment tools significantly enhances the likelihood of effective pain management and improved pain-related outcomes. This paper reviews selected tools and provides palliative care clinicians with a practical approach to selecting a pain assessment tool for noncommunicative adult patients.

A systematic review of observational pain assessment instruments for use with nonverbal intubated critically ill adult patients in the emergency department: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

To examine the psychometric properties and suitability of the available observational pain instruments for potential use with nonverbal critically ill adult patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND

In the emergency department, assessing pain in critically ill patients is challenging, especially those unable to communicate the presence of pain. Critically ill patients are commonly unable to verbally communicate pain due to altered oral communication (e.g. endotracheal intubation) and/or diminished consciousness (e.g. sedation, delirium), placing them at great risk of inadequate pain management. Over half of intensive care critically ill intubated patients experience moderate-to-severe pain whilst intubated and mechanically ventilated.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

The CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest databases, and the Cochrane Library and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence were also searched from their date of inception to April 2016, with no language restrictions applied.

REVIEW METHOD

Studies were identified using predetermined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and summarised and underwent evaluation using published classification of psychometric tests for consistency of interpretation.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies evaluating five observational pain assessment instruments that had been used with critically ill intubated patients were identified. All five instruments included behavioural indicators, with two including physiologic indicators. All five instruments have undergone validity and reliability testing involving nonverbal critically ill intubated patients, three were examined for feasibility, and one instrument underwent sensitivity and specificity testing. None have been tested within the emergency department with nonverbal critically ill intubated adult patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of an appropriate and valid observational pain assessment instrument is fundamental to detecting and optimising pain management in nonverbal critically ill intubated patients in the emergency department. Of the observational pain assessment instruments reviewed, the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool was identified as most appropriate for testing in a prospective trial in an emergency department setting.

A Study on the Psychometric Properties of Revised-nonverbal Pain Scale and Original-nonverbal Pain Scale in Iranian Nonverbal-ventilated Patients

Background and Aims:

The nonverbal pain scale is one of the instruments which study pain in nonverbal-ventilated patients with regard to the changes of behavioral and physiological indices. The purpose of the study is to survey the psychometric properties of revised-nonverbal pain scale (R-NVPS) and original-nonverbal pain scale (O-NVPS) in ventilated patients hospitalized in critical care units.

Materials and Methods:

Four nurses studied pain in sixty patients hospitalized in trauma, medical, neurology, and surgical critical care units using R-NVPS and O-NVPS at six times (before, during, and after nociceptive and nonnociceptive procedures). The test was repeated in 37 patients after 8–12 h.

Results:

Cronbach's alpha coefficient for R-NVPS and O-NVPS was 0.8 and 0.76, respectively. The inter-rater correlation coefficient during different times was r = 0.89–0.96 for R-NVPS and r = 0.80–0.87 for O-NVPS. Test-retest correlation coefficient for R-NVPS and O-NVPS was r = 0.55–0.86 and r = 0.51–0.75, respectively. The meaningful difference in pain score between nociceptive and nonnociceptive procedures (P < 0.001) and a higher pain score in patients who confirmed pain (P < 0.001) showed a discriminant and criterion validity for both scales of NVPS, respectively.

Conclusions:

R-NVPS and O-NVPS can both be used as valid and reliable scales in studying pain in ventilated patient. However, in comparing the items, “respiration” (R-NVPS) had a higher sensitivity than “physiology II” (O-NVPS) in assessing pain.

Validation of critical care pain observation tool in patients hospitalized in surgical wards

BACKGROUND

Application of a reliable and authentic behavioral tool for measuring patients' pain, hospitalized in intensive care units who are not able to establish relationship, is needed severely. Therefore, this study is conducted with the aim of validating Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in patients hospitalized in surgical wards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CPOT was first translated into Persian and was psychometrically measured in terms of content.

RESULTS

It should be noted that the content validity of CPOT was approved by panel of specialists. In addition, validity of this tool was confirmed with high internal cluster correlation (nonpainful procedure (0.997) and painful procedure (0.726). The diagnostic validity was supported with the increased CPOT score during position change and its constancy during the measurement of blood pressure (P < 0.001). Despite higher NRS scores than CPOT, CPOT criterion validity was confirmed due to the correlation between the scores obtained by these two tools (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CPOT is a valid and reliable tool to study pain in patients hospitalized in intensive care units.

Evaluation of Pain Assessment Tools in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

Pain assessment poses a great challenge for clinicians in intensive care units. This descriptive study aimed to find the most reliable, sensitive, and valid tool for assessing pain. The researcher and a nurse simultaneously assessed 47 nonverbal patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit by using 3 tools: the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), and the adult Nonverbal Pain Scale (NVPS) before, during, and after turning and suctioning. All tools were found to be reliable and valid (Cronbach α = 0.95 for both the BPS and the CPOT, α = 0.86 for the NVPS), and all subscales of both the BPS and CPOT were highly sensitive for assessing pain (P &lt; .001). The NVPS physiology (P = .21) and respiratory (P = .16) subscales were not sensitive for assessing pain. The BPS was the most reliable, valid, and sensitive tool, with the CPOT considered an appropriate alternative tool for assessing pain. The NVPS is not recommended because of its inconsistent psychometric properties.

Ten Myths and Misconceptions Regarding Pain Management in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to expose common myths and misconceptions regarding pain assessment and management in critically ill patients that interfere with effective care. We comprehensively review the literature refuting these myths and misconceptions and describe evidence-based strategies for improving pain management in the ICU.

DATA SOURCES

Current peer-reviewed academic journals, as well as standards and guidelines from professional societies.

STUDY SELECTION

The most current evidence was selected for review based on the highest degree of supportive evidence.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were obtained via medical search databases, including OvidSP, and the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database via PubMed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

After a comprehensive literature review, conclusions were drawn based on the strength of evidence and the most current understanding of pain management practices in ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

Myths and misconceptions regarding management of pain in the ICU are prevalent. Review of current evidence refutes these myths and misconceptions and provides insights and recommendations to ensure best practices.

Psychometric comparison of three behavioural scales for the assessment of pain in critically ill patients unable to self-report

Introduction

Pain assessment is associated with important outcomes in ICU patients but remains challenging, particularly in non-communicative patients. Use of a reliable tool is paramount to allow any implementation of sedation/analgesia protocols in a multidisciplinary team. This study compared psychometric properties (inter-rater agreement primarily; validity, responsiveness and feasibility secondarily) of three pain scales: Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS/BPS-NI, that is BPS for Non-Intubated patients), Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS), the pain tool routinely used in this 16-bed medical ICU.

Methods

Pain was assessed by at least one of four investigators and one of the 20 bedside nurses before, during and 10 minutes after routine care procedures in non-comatose patients (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale ≥ -3) who were unable to self-report their pain intensity. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was used to assess delirium. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Quantitative data are presented as median (25^th to 75^th).

Results

A total of 258 paired assessments of pain were performed in 30 patients (43% lightly sedated, 57% with delirium, 63% mechanically ventilated). All three scales demonstrated good psychometric properties. However, BPS and CPOT exhibited the best inter-rater reliability (weighted-κ 0.81 for BPS and CPOT) and the best internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.80 for BPS, 0.81 for CPOT), which were higher than for NVPS (weighted-κ 0.71, P <0.05; Cronbach-α 0.76, P <0.01). Responsiveness was significantly higher for BPS compared to CPOT and for CPOT compared to NVPS. For feasibility, BPS was rated as the easiest scale to remember but there was no significant difference in regards to users’ preference.

Conclusions

BPS and CPOT demonstrate similar psychometric properties in non-communicative intubated and non-intubated ICU patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/cc14000) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Behavioral changes in brain-injured critical care adults with different levels of consciousness during nociceptive stimulation: an observational study

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study was to describe the frequency of behaviors observed during rest, a non-nociceptive procedure, and a nociceptive procedure in brain-injured intensive care unit (ICU) patients with different levels of consciousness (LOC). Second, it examined the inter-rater reliability and discriminant and concurrent validity of the behavioral checklist used.

METHODS

The non-nociceptive procedure involved calling the patient and shaking his/her shoulder. The nociceptive procedure involved turning the patient. The frequency of behaviors was recorded using a behavioral checklist.

RESULTS

Patients with absence of movement, or stereotyped flexion or extension responses to a nociceptive stimulus displayed more behaviors during turning (median 5.5, range 0-14) than patients with localized responses (median 4, range 0-10) or able to self-report their pain (median 4, range 0-10). Face flushing, clenched teeth, clenched fist, and tremor were more frequent in patients with absence of movement, or stereotyped responses to a nociceptive stimulus. The reliability of the checklist was supported by a high intra-class correlation coefficient (0.77-0.92), and the internal consistency was acceptable in all three groups (KR 20, 0.71-0.85). Discriminant validity was supported as significantly more behaviors were observed during nociceptive stimulation than at rest. Concurrent validity was confirmed as checklist scores were correlated to the patients' self-reports of pain (r s = 0.53; 95 % CI 0.21-0.75).

CONCLUSION

Brain-injured patients reacted significantly more during a nociceptive stimulus and the number of observed behaviors was higher in patients with a stereotyped response.