[Effect of an Intervention Using Voice Recording of a Family Member on Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilator Weaning Process]

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the impact of an intervention using voice recording of family members on pain, anxiety, and agitation in patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A randomized control pre-post experimental design was implemented to 53 participants, with 27 and 26 participants in the experimental and control groups, respectively. A 70-second voice recording of a family member, repeated three times at 10-minute intervals was used as an intervention for the experimental group. Meanwhile, participants in the control group used headset for 30 minutes. Structured instruments were utilized to measure pain, anxiety, agitation, and the weaning process. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test and the Mann-Whitney U test, or χ² test, were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The experimental group exhibited significant decrease in pain (Z = -3.53, p < .001), anxiety (t = 5.45, p < .001), and agitation (Z = -2.99, p = .003) scores compared with those of the control group. However, there was no significant difference between groups in the weaning process' simplification (χ² = 0.63, p = .727).

CONCLUSION

Intervention using family members' voice recording effectively reduces pain, anxiety, and agitation in patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation. This can be actively utilized to provide a more comfortable process for patients.

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.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been widely used to assess pain in ICU patients, and its validity and reliability have been tested in various contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CPOT in critically ill patients, a systematic review of diagnostic studies was performed.

METHODS

A database search (PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, COVIP, CBM) was conducted, as was the manual identification of eligible papers from citations. Eligible studies were published between 2006 and February 2020. Quality appraisal of the studies was carried out with the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction was performed in alignment with STARD 2015. Open Meta Analyst was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 25 articles involving 1920 subjects with 3493 experimental results were included. Most of the studies were of fair quality. A high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 57.2%, P < 0.001) was discovered. The Youden index values were 1.56 and 1.55 when the CPOT threshold was set at two and three, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CPOT was affected by the reference standard. The CPOT had a higher diagnostic odds ratio of 11.52 (95% CI: 7.42-17.87) during nociceptive procedures compared with 9.14 (95% CI: 5.38-15.53) at rest or during non-nociceptive procedures.

CONCLUSION

CPOT has moderate diagnostic parameters with a threshold of two or three, suggesting that it is a fair but not excellent tool. More research on the validity of the CPOT in specific subgroups is needed to broaden its applicability in critical care.

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.

Translation into Spanish and Cultural Adaptation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool

BACKGROUND

The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is recommended for evaluating pain behaviors in patients in the intensive care unit who are unable to report pain. The source of the only published Spanish version of the CPOT does not verify that it underwent a formal translation process.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the translation into Spanish and cultural adaptation of the original French version of the CPOT.

METHODS

Key persons in the translation process included one with a master's degree in translation, a critical care physician, nurse faculty members with vast experience in intensive care units, and the instrument's developer. This team followed the Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures as a guide to translate and culturally adapt the CPOT.

RESULTS

The first Spanish-language version was back translated to French and was also compared with the English version. Revisions necessitated a second version, which was submitted to experts in critical care. Their modifications required a third version, which was back translated to French and discussed with the CPOT developer, after which a fourth version was created. Finally, a linguistic expert proofread the tool, and the translation leaders incorporated the recommendations, thereby obtaining a final Spanish version.

CONCLUSION

The Spanish version is ready to undergo validation with patients in the intensive care unit, which is the next step toward its use in assessing pain behaviors among patients in intensive care units where Spanish is spoken.

The German version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool for critically ill adults : A prospective validation study

BACKGROUND

The implementation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation tool (CPOT) in intensive care units (ICU) has been associated with more frequent pain assessments, a reduced number of complications, and improved administration of analgesics and sedatives. So far no German translation exists. Translating this tool into foreign languages requires further validation testing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective observational validation study was to translate the original version of the CPOT according to scientific principles for translation and to establish the validity and reliability of the German translation of CPOT for critically ill adult patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 292 cardiac surgery patients from 2 ICUs of 2 German university teaching hospitals were included (114 patients at center 1 and 178 patients at center 2). Of the included patients 22.6% were female and 76.4% were male with a mean age of 68.5 years ±9.3 SD. Pain was evaluated with the CPOT, the Bhavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and with the Numeric Rating scale (NRS) at three time points (1. intubated + sedated, 2. intubated + awake, 3. extubated + awake) at rest and during nociceptive stimulus (positioning). Assessments were made separately by trained physicians and nursing staff.

RESULTS

Good results for interrater reliability and internal consistency could be demonstrated (weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.73, Cronbach's coefficient alpha of 0.8). Spearman correlation between CPOT and NRS was moderate but significant. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to obtain optimal thresholds of CPOT to detect pain revealed different results during rest and stimulus and in intubated and extubated patients.

CONCLUSION

The validated German CPOT translation is a reliable tool for pain assessment in cardiac ICU patients in the absence of patients' ability for self-reporting. The use of this German version of CPOT now allows a better international comparability of corresponding data in future studies.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

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.

Validation of the Polish version of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to assess pain intensity in adult, intubated intensive care unit patients: the POL-CPOT study

INTRODUCTION

Pain in the critically ill affects nearly 50% of patients. In patients unable to self-report pain, behavioural scales are used. The aim of this study was to validate the Polish version of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The prospective observational cohort study included patients observed during non-nociceptive and nociceptive procedures, at rest, during the intervention, and 15 min after each intervention. Assessments included self-report by patients and CPOT assessment carried out by two blinded observers.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were included in the study (mean age: 66 years), predominantly males (50/71, 70%), mean APACHE II score 26.04 ±10.56. Results showed an excellent inter-rater correlation (ICC) between raters (ICC scores > 0.97). Self-report NRS (numeric rating scale) scores were available from 58/71 patients (82%). Patients' self-reported pain and CPOT showed a very strong correlation (Spearman's R > 0.85, p < 0.0001). The CPOT has high diagnostic value for detection of presence of patients' self-reported pain (ROC AUC = 0.938 for rater A and 0.951 for rater B, p < 0.0001). CPOT score ≥ 2 is an optimal cut-off to detect pain during a nociceptive procedure. A significantly higher mean CPOT score during a nociceptive procedure as compared to a non-nociceptive procedure or at rest was found (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the Polish version of the CPOT can be used to assess pain in critically ill patients with no hypnotic, opioid-based analgo-sedation. Polish CPOT scores correlated well with patients' self-reported presence of pain and showed excellent inter-rater reliability. This makes the Polish version of the CPOT a reliable pain assessment tool.

[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.

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.

Validation of the Danish version of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool

BACKGROUND

Assessing pain in critically ill patients is a challenge even in an intensive care unit (ICU) with a no sedation protocol. The aim of this study was to validate the Danish version of the pain assessment method; Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in an ICU with a no sedation protocol.

METHODS

Seventy patients were included in this study. The patients were observed during a non-nociceptive procedure (wash of an arm) and a nociceptive procedure (turning). Patients were observed before, during, and 15 min after the two interventions (six assessments). Two observers participated in the data collection and CPOT scores were blinded to each other. Calculations of interrater reliability, criterion validity and discriminant validity were performed to validate the Danish version of CPOT.

RESULTS

The results indicated a good correlation between the two raters (all scores > 0.9 and P < 0.05). About 48 (68.6%) of the included patients were able to self-report pain. We found a significantly higher mean CPOT score at the nociceptive procedure than at rest or the non-nociceptive procedure (P < 0.05). No correlation was found between CPOT scores and physiological indicators. Patients self-reported pain and CPOT showed a significant correlation (P < 0.05). A CPOT score of ≥ 3 correlated with patients' self-reported pain (ROC AUC 0.83).

CONCLUSION

The Danish version of CPOT can be used to assess pain in critically ill patients, also when the ICU has a no sedation protocol. CPOT scores showed a good interrater reliability and correlates well with patient's self-reported pain.

Translation, adaptation, and validation of the behavioral pain scale and the critical-care pain observational tools in Taiwan

This study describes the cultural adaptation and testing of the behavioral pain scale (BPS) and the critical-care pain observation tools (CPOT) for pain assessment in Taiwan. The cross-cultural adaptation followed the steps of translation, including forward translation, back-translation, evaluation of the translations by a committee of experts, adjustments, and then piloting of the prefinal versions of the BPS and the CPOT. A content validity index was used to assess content validities of the BPS and the CPOT, with 0.80 preset as the level that would be regarded as acceptable. The principal investigator then made adjustments when the content validity index was <0.80. The pilot test was performed with a sample of ten purposively selected patients by 2 medical staff from a medical care center in Taiwan. The BPS and the CPOT are adequate instruments for the assessment of pain levels in patients who cannot communicate due to sedation and ventilation treatments.

Validation of the Dutch version of the critical-care pain observation tool

BACKGROUND

Systematic assessment of pain is necessary for adequate treatment of pain. Patient self-reported pain is a superior assessment but is of limited use for intubated patients in the intensive care unit. For these patients, the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been developed.

AIM

To perform a validation of the Dutch CPOT.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

METHODS

The Dutch translation of the CPOT was used. Clinimetric characteristics were analysed in a cross-sectional design. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was tested by collecting CPOT scores in patients at rest and during turning. Inter-rater reliability was tested by collecting CPOT scores simultaneously by two different nurses who were blinded to each other's scores. Criterion validity (area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity) of the Dutch CPOT (index test) was analysed using patient self-reported pain (reference test).

RESULTS

Cronbach's alpha was 0.56. During rest, the inter-rater reliability was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20-0.53). During turning, the inter-rater reliability was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.42-0.68; area under the curve = 0.65 [95% CI 0.57-0.73]). At a threshold CPOT score of 2, the sensitivity and specificity were 39% and 85%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Dutch CPOT is available for pain assessment in intubated patients unable to self-report. Inter-rater reliability is moderate. At the threshold, a CPOT score of 2, the sensitivity was 39% and the specificity of 85%.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The CPOT is easy to use for systematic assessment of pain. Additional information about the threshold is valuable for use in daily practice.

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

BACKGROUND

Studies have demonstrated that patients in the intensive care unit experience high levels of pain. While many of these patients are nonverbal at some point during their stay, there are few valid tools available to assess pain in this group.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the validity and clinical utility of two pain assessment tools, the revised Adult Non-Verbal Pain Scale (NVPS-R) and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), in a trauma and neurosurgical patient population.

METHODS

Patients were assessed using the NVPS-R and CPOT by trained intensive care unit nurses (n=23) and research assistants before, during and after two procedures: turning of the patient (nociceptive procedure) and noninvasive blood pressure cuff inflation (non-nociceptive procedure). Communicative patients were also asked to report their level of pain during each assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients (34 communicative, 32 noncommunicative) were included in the study. CPOT and NVPS-R scores increased significantly when participants were exposed to turning, but not during noninvasive blood pressure measurement (repeated measures ANOVA: CPOT, F=5.81, P=0.019; NVPS-R, F=5.32, P=0.025) supporting discriminant validity. CPOT and NVPS-R scores were significantly higher during the turning procedure for patients who had indicated that they were in pain versus those who were not, indicating criterion validity. Inter-rater reliability was generally higher for the CPOT than NVPS-R. Nurses rated the feasibility of the two tools as comparable but provided higher ratings of acceptability for the CPOT.

CONCLUSIONS

While the present study supports the use of the CPOT and the NVPS-R with critically ill trauma and neurosurgical patients, further research should explore the role of vital signs in pain.