Pain Management in the Critically Ill

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.

A preliminary validation of the Swedish version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool in adults

BACKGROUND

Assessing pain in critically ill patients can be complicated, especially for those unable to communicate. A recently developed pain assessment tool, the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), has been shown to be a reliable tool for pain assessment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The aim of the study was to validate the Swedish version of the CPOT.

METHODS

Conscious and unconscious adults were observed during two procedures: one non-nociceptive procedure (NNP) (arm- and face wash) and one nociceptive procedure (NP) (turning). In total, there were 240 patient assessments pre-, per- and post-procedure performed by two independent staff members at rest, during and 15 min after the different procedures. Measures of interrater reliability, internal consistency and discriminant validity of the CPOT were obtained to examine the properties of the Swedish version of CPOT.

RESULTS

The results provide indications of good agreement between the independent raters (ICC=0.84). There was an adequate discriminant validity of the Swedish version of CPOT established by a significant peak for CPOT scores during the NP (per-procedure). There was also a consistent pattern of significant correlations between CPOT and the mean artery pressure (ρ=0.32-0.45).

CONCLUSION

The Swedish version of the CPOT is a suitable instrument for assessing pain in critically ill adults. The overall reliability and validity measures converge with findings from previous studies of the CPOT, but in order to achieve enhanced generalizability of the CPOT, we encourage further evaluation of CPOT in broader groups of critically ill patients.

Facial expression and pain in the critically ill non-communicative patient: state of science review

The aim of this review is to analyse the evidence related to the relationship between facial expression and pain assessment tools in the critically ill non-communicative patients. Pain assessment is a significant challenge in critically ill adults, especially those who are unable to communicate their pain level. During critical illness, many factors alter verbal communication with patients including tracheal intubation, reduced level of consciousness and administration of sedation and analgesia. The first step in providing adequate pain relief is using a systematic, consistent assessment and documentation of pain. However, no single tool is universally accepted for use in these patients. A common component of behavioural pain tools is evaluation of facial behaviours. Although use of facial expression is an important behavioural measure of pain intensity, there are inconsistencies in defining descriptors of facial behaviour. Therefore, it is important to understand facial expression in non-communicative critically ill patients experiencing pain to assist in the development of concise descriptors to enhance pain evaluation and management. This paper will provide a comprehensive review of the current state of science in the study of facial expression and its application in pain assessment tools.

The use of the Behavioral Pain Scale to assess pain in conscious sedated patients

BACKGROUND

Assessing pain in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients is a great challenge. There is a need for an adequate pain measurement tool for use in conscious sedated patients because of their questionable communicative abilities. In this study, we evaluated the use of the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) in conscious sedated patients in comparison with its use in deeply sedated patients, for whom the BPS was developed. Additionally, in conscious sedated patients, the combination of the BPS and the patient-rated Verbal Rating Scale (VRS-4) was evaluated.

METHODS

We performed a prospective evaluation study in 80 nonparalyzed critically ill adult intensive care unit patients. Over 2 mo, nurses performed 175 observation series: 126 in deeply sedated patients and 49 in conscious sedated patients. Each observation series consisted of BPS ratings (range 3-12) at 4 points: at rest, during a nonpainful procedure, at retest rest, and during a routine painful procedure. Patients in the conscious sedated state also self-reported their pain using the 4-point VRS-4.

RESULTS

BPS scores during painful procedures were significantly higher than those at rest, both in deeply sedated patients (5.1 [4.8-5.5] vs 3.4 [3.3-3.5], respectively) and conscious sedated patients (5.4 [4.9-5.9] vs 3.8 [3.5-4.1], respectively) (mean [95% confidence interval]). For both groups, scores obtained during the nonpainful procedure and at rest did not significantly differ. There was a strong correlation between nurses' BPS ratings and conscious sedated patients' VRS-4 ratings during the painful procedure (r(s) = 0.67, P < 0.001). At rest and during nonpainful procedures, 98% of the observations were rated as acceptable pain (VRS 1 or 2) by both nurses and patients. During painful procedures, nurses rated the pain higher than patients did in 16% of the observations and lower in 12% of the observations.

CONCLUSION

The BPS is a valid tool for measuring pain in conscious sedated patients during painful procedures. Thus, for noncommunicative and mechanically ventilated patients, it may be regarded as a bridge between the observational scale used by nurses and the VRS-4 used by patients who are able to self-report pain.