A simultaneous comparison of four neonatal pain scales in clinical settings

Clinical rating scales for assessing pain in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Six to nine per cent of all newborn infants require admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) due to either illness or prematurity. During their stay, these infants are often subjected to many painful procedures that can cause negative long-term consequences. To reduce the negative effects of pain exposure and ensure optimal and safe pain treatment, accurate assessment of pain is necessary. To achieve this, clinicians are dependent on the use of reliable, objective, and standardised clinical rating scales of pain, henceforth referred to as 'rating scales'. Numerous rating scales have been published; however, discrepancies in validity limit their overall applicability in clinical practice and research. Such limitations may lead to an over- or underestimation of pain, resulting in unnecessary sedation or inadequately treated pain, potentially jeopardising infant safety through treatment side effects, including withdrawal symptoms or prolonged discomfort. To date, the majority of rating scales have been developed to assess procedural pain, whilst fewer scales for prolonged pain are available. Premature infants further complicate matters, as they often have a reduced ability to display robust pain behaviour due to their immaturity. Research has also shown that the use of rating scales in clinical practice is suboptimal, due to both inadequate and infrequent implementation alongside inappropriate choice of scale for the specific pain, population, or setting under evaluation. Despite numerous studies investigating the burden of pain in newborn infants, little work has been done to summarise the current evidence on the appropriateness of rating scales for specific types of pain or infant conditions. This has likely been limited by the subjectivity of pain assessment and further complication of assessing such a non-verbal and immature patient population. The immense burden of neonatal pain worldwide has also led to the development of numerous rating scales in various languages, further hindering evidence summation.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the literature to compile and describe the development, content, and measurement properties of clinical rating scales for the assessment of pain in newborn infants.

SEARCH METHODS

An Information Specialist systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. The latest update search is current to July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all study designs that involved the development or testing of a rating scale for assessing pain in newborn infants. We included preterm (born before week 37) and term (born at week 37 or beyond) infants undergoing pain assessment for any medical indication. We also included studies that included healthcare professionals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We evaluated clinical rating scales assessing pain in newborn infants using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology evaluating content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and cross-cultural validation. We used a modified GRADE approach to assess risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 79 studies involving a total of 7197 infants, 326 nurses, and 12 physicians. Twenty-seven clinical rating scales were used in 26 countries, with 14 studies evaluating preterm infants, 11 on term infants, 46 on both preterm and term infants, four solely on medical staff, and four on preterm and/or term infants plus medical staff. Following the COSMIN checklist, we found all rating scales to be of very low-certainty evidence, raising concerns regarding their validity, reliability, and applicability in this vulnerable population across diverse clinical settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical staff should be vigilant when applying the currently available neonatal rating scales. Further development of rating scale content and testing for structural validity are necessary and should be prioritised. Together, they determine the content and structure of rating scales, underpin further testing, including reliability, and their prioritisation will make the greatest contribution to the evidence base for rating scales to assess neonatal pain. Collaborative efforts between clinicians and methodology experts will prevent methodological pitfalls and contribute to improving the validity and reliability of pain-rating scales in neonatology.

No More Evasion: Redefining Conflict Behaviour in Human-Horse Interactions

Euphemisms, anthropomorphisms, and equivocation are established characteristics of traditional equestrian language. 'Evasion', 'resistance', and 'disobedience' are common labels assigned to unwelcome equine behaviours, implying that the horse is at fault for not complying with the human's cues and expectations. These terms appear to overlook multiple motivations that may directly result in the horse offering unwelcome responses, which may then inadvertently be reinforced. This article revisits some of the anthropocentric inferences in these terms and explores the harmful consequences of such convenient but incorrect labels before proposing a redefinition of 'conflict behaviour' in human-horse interactions: Responses reflective of competing motivations for the horse that may exist on a continuum from subtle to overt, with frequencies that range from a singular momentary behavioural response to repetitive displays when motivational conflict is prolonged. Addressing how inadequate terms may mask pain, obscure the horse's motivation, and deflect human culpability, this commentary highlights the merits of a multidisciplinary approach to terminology across equine research. Acknowledging that variables contributing to behaviour can be biological, environmental and anthropogenic, it emphasises the need for more investigation into the relationships between equicentric motivations reflecting equine telos and problematic horse behaviours.

The use and reporting of neonatal pain scales: a systematic review of randomized trials

ABSTRACT

The burden of pain in newborn infants has been investigated in numerous studies, but little is known about the appropriateness of the use of pain scales according to the specific type of pain or infant condition. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting of neonatal pain scales in randomized trials. A systematic search up to March 2019 was performed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Luxid. Randomized and quasirandomized trials reporting neonatal pain scales were included. Screening of the studies for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment was performed independently by 2 researchers. Of 3718 trials found, 352 with 29,137 infants and 22 published pain scales were included. Most studies (92%) concerned procedural pain, where the most frequently used pain scales were the Premature Infant Pain Profile or Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (48%), followed by the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (23%). Although the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale is validated only for acute pain, it was also the second most used scale for ongoing and postoperative pain (21%). Only in a third of the trials, blinding for those performing the pain assessment was described. In 55 studies (16%), pain scales that were used lacked validation for the specific neonatal population or type of pain. Six validated pain scales were used in 90% of all trials, although not always in the correct population or type of pain. Depending on the type of pain and population of infants included in a study, appropriate scales should be selected. The inappropriate use raises serious concerns about research ethics and use of resources.

Pain Assessment Practices in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE

Pain assessment is the first step in managing pain; however, this can be challenging, particularly in settings such as the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). This paper reports the current pain assessment practices from a study that was conducted describing the prevalence of pain, pain assessment, painful procedures, interventions, and characteristics of critically-ill children. Specifically, this paper addresses the child's communicative ability, pain scales, and characteristics of pain.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The primary study was a cross-sectional, multi-site, descriptive design. Data from a 24-hour time period were collected from medical records and bedside nurses.

RESULTS

Data were collected from the records of 220 children across 15 PICUs. The average number of pain assessments per child was 11.5 (SD 5.8, range 1-28). Seven behavioral scales and five self-report scales were used. There were times when no scale was used, "assume pain present" was recorded, or a sedation scale was documented. Twelve pain scales, including the target population, scoring, psychometric properties, and clinical utility are described.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study indicate that a wide range of pain assessment tools are used, including behavioral scales for children unable to self-report.

IMPLICATIONS

Foremost, the appropriate assessment method needs to be chosen for each child to manage pain. Knowledge of the criteria for the use of each pain assessment scale will help the clinician select the appropriate scale to use for each child. The practice of "assume pain present," as well as standardization of pain scales, and clinical support tools needs further investigation.

Prematurity alters skin conductance and behavioural scoring after acute stress in term-equivalent age infants

AIM

The primary objective was to assess the effect of prematurity at term-equivalent age on skin conductance and behavioural responses to acute stress. The secondary objective was to explore the reliability of skin conductance in detecting neonatal discomfort in preterm and full-term populations.

METHODS

Very preterm infants at term-equivalent age and healthy full-term neonates, 34 infants in each group, underwent the hip dysplasia screening test. The acute pain in newborn infants (APN) scale was scored before and 15, 45 and 90 seconds after stimulus. Skin conductance was measured in the 30-second time-lap before and after stimulus.

RESULTS

The APN score was lower in preterm infants after intervention (term: 5.4 ± 2.8 vs. preterm: 3.9 ± 2.2; p = 0.03). Peaks-per-second, a skin conductance parameter, exhibited lower basal values in preterm infants than in term infants, with similar rise induced by stressful challenge. Peaks-per-second values were correlated to the 15-second APN score in both groups (term: r = 0.55, p < 0.001; preterm: r = 0.43, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Preterm birth changed skin conductance signal and behavioural response to stress at term-equivalent age. The skin conductance device may be an objective tool for a continuous monitoring of acute neonatal stress.

Comparing N-PASS and NIPS: Improving Pain Measurement in the Neonate

BACKGROUND

Proper assessment of pain is essential to allow for safe and compassionate care of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) used in an urban level IV NICU addresses acute pain but may not adequately measure chronic neonatal pain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quality improvement study was to improve acute and chronic pain measurements for neonates in an NICU through implementation of the Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale (N-PASS).

METHODS/SEARCH STRATEGY

An evidence search for a comprehensive tool to assess neonatal pain in the setting of a 45-bed level IV NICU was completed. The N-PASS was found to be inclusive of measuring acute and chronic neonatal pain. Participants for a quality improvement study, including NICU nurses and providers, were educated on the N-PASS. Nurses documented in the N-PASS and the NIPS during routine pain assessments for NICU infants for comparison. Participants completed a survey assessing knowledge of the N-PASS.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

When compared, the N-PASS generated 98% of pain scores greater than the NIPS. Surveys demonstrated an increase in staff knowledge for the N-PASS.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Implementation of a multidimensional pain tool that measures acute and chronic pain is essential for proper pain assessment. Providers can manage neonatal pain when accurate documentation is available.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Further research evaluating guided management of acute and chronic pain scores on the N-PASS would aid hospital policies on therapies for neonatal pain.

Oral glucose efficacy on neonate's pain responses at the NICU: A quasi experimental trial of two clinical procedures

AIM

This research was undertaken with the purpose of testing two research hypotheses regarding the efficacy of 10% oral glucose solution on procedural pain associated with venepuncture and nasopharyngeal suctioning within three neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The hypotheses were formulated from previous conclusions reached by other researchers highlighting the efficacy of sucrose solutions on neonates' pain responses during minor painful procedures.

METHOD

A quasi-experimental trial utilising a time series design with one group was used. Data from a total of 90 neonates included 60 neonates who underwent a venepuncture and 30 neonates who underwent a nasopharyngeal suctioning procedure for clinical purposes. The neonate's pain response for each procedure was scored using the Neonatal Pain Assessment Scale (NPAS) on two separate occasions over three time periods. The pre-procedural score (T₀) when the neonate received no sucrose, the inter-procedural score (T₁) when the neonate was given 2ml of 10% glucose solution two minutes before the procedure (intervention group) or where oral glucose was withheld (control group) and the post-procedural score (T₂) being at the end of the procedure.

RESULTS

The results showed the mean NPAS scores in response to venepuncture or nasopharyngeal suctioning were significantly lower in the intervention group than the control group.

CONCLUSION

This showed that oral glucose (10%) had a positive effect on the pain response during venepuncture and nasopharyngeal suctioning procedures.

Should we assess pain in newborn infants using a scoring system or just a detection method?

Newborn infants' pain should be scored indirectly using dedicated pain scales. Unfortunately, while some scales for prolonged pain have given good results, a gold standard to assess acute pain does not exist. Acute pain scales still have weak points, most are complex and are scarcely used in neonatal departments. Moreover, carefully scoring pain in clinical practice seems redundant, because any avoidable pain is a concern. This suggests that researchers must find new ways to assess acute pain. A possible approach is to settle for pain detection instead of pain scoring in selected cases. Here, we describe a two-point method that illustrates this approach.

CONCLUSION

For everyday practice, detecting pain is more useful than scoring it; acute pain scales should be reserved for research, for those clinical settings where the personnel has received a careful training and where overcrowding and hurry are absent.

Palliative care for the newborn in the United Kingdom

Palliative care for the newborn is a developing area. There are more than 2000 estimated neonatal deaths each year in the UK from causes likely to benefit from palliative care. There is an increasing recognition that while the goals of care may be different for dying newborns, they deserve the same high standard of care as those babies who go on to survive. Recent neonatal palliative care guidance is available from the British Association for Perinatal Medicine (BAPM), the General Medical Council (GMC), and ACT (the U.K. association for children's palliative care). We attempt to answer the question: 'What does the provision of good neonatal palliative care look like?' by examining the factors important in the provision of such care.