[Process for implementing a pain assessment scale for patients with brain injuries: description of a project methodology based on the Integrated Model of Consultation]

Background : in a neurosurgery unit, nurses selected the Critical Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) based on evidence to assess pain in brain-injured patients. However, months after implementation, nursing managers have observed an underutilization.Objectives : support a care team to overcome the pitfalls encountered during the implementation of the CPOT scale for brain-injured patients in neurosurgery unit.Methods : the Lescarbeau, Payette and St-Arnaud's Integrated Model of Consultation was selected. In addition to a scientific literature review, self-administered questionnaire and three interview guides were developed to gather the views of caregivers.Results : the process allowed to identify pitfalls at level of interprofessional collaboration CPOT scale and implementation processes. Improving interprofessional collaboration and adaptation of CPOT scale for brain-injured patients were withholding action priorities.Discussion : a rigorous methodology, the mutual recognition of clinical skills and the development of relationship of trust are prerequisites for the success of clinical innovation.Conclusion : the Integrated Intervention Model is a methodology of choice allowing to take into consideration both evidence and preferences of all actors at every step of the process led to informed choices and priorities setting for a successful implementation.

Generating and selecting pain indicators for brain-injured critical care patients

Current pain assessment tools for nonverbal critical care patients may not be appropriate for those with brain injury, as these patients demonstrate specific responses to pain. The aim of this study was to generate and select items that could be used to assess pain in brain-injured patients. A sequential mixed-method design was chosen with three consecutive steps: 1. Generate items with a literature review, the results of a pilot study, and interviews with 18 clinicians using the nominal group technique. 2. Evaluate content validity with 10 clinicians and four scientists, using a web-based questionnaire. 3. Describe and reduce items with the observation of 116 brain-injured patients in the intensive care unit during common painful procedures. This study took place between May 2010 and October 2011 in two tertiary hospitals in Western Switzerland. Forty-seven items were generated and reduced to 33 during the content validity process. The behaviors most frequently observed during turning were closing the eyes (58.6%), eye movements (57.8%), ventilator asynchrony (55.2%), and frowning/brow lowering (50%). Five items were observed in less than 5% of the patients during nociceptive procedure. Constant motor activity was observed more frequently at rest than during nociceptive stimulation. All physiologic items showed little variability and their reliability was low. Based on these results, the number of items was reduced to 23. This study identified items that could be specific to brain-injured patients and found that the variability of physiologic items was poorly assessed by clinicians.

Expert clinical reasoning and pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients: A descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients is challenging, because nurses need to decode pain behaviour, interpret pain scores, and make appropriate decisions. This clinical reasoning process is inherent to advanced nursing practice, but is poorly understood. A better understanding of this process could contribute to improved pain assessment and management.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the indicators that influence expert nurses' clinical reasoning when assessing pain in critically ill nonverbal patients.

METHODS

This descriptive observational study was conducted in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary referral hospital in Western Switzerland. A purposive sample of expert nurses, caring for nonverbal ventilated patients who received sedation and analgesia, were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected in "real life" using recorded think-aloud combined with direct non-participant observation and brief interviews. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analyses using a theoretical framework related to clinical reasoning and pain.

RESULTS

Seven expert nurses with an average of 7.85 (±3.1) years of critical care experience participated in the study. The patients had respiratory distress (n=2), cardiac arrest (n=2), sub-arachnoid bleeding (n=1), and multi-trauma (n=2). A total of 1344 quotes in five categories were identified. Patients' physiological stability was the principal indicator for making decision in relation to pain management. Results also showed that it is a permanent challenge for nurses to discriminate situations requiring sedation from situations requiring analgesia. Expert nurses mainly used working knowledge and patterns to anticipate and prevent pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient's clinical condition is important for making decision about pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. The concept of pain cannot be assessed in isolation and its assessment should take the patient's clinical stability and sedation into account. Further research is warranted to confirm these results.

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.