Comparison between Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and physiologic indicators for pain assessment in the critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Indonesian version of the Critical-care Pain Observation Tool

Objective

The Critical-care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is one of the most accurate methods for assessing pain in ICU patients with critical illness and/or a decreased level of consciousness (LOC). This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Indonesian version of the CPOT.

Methods

The English version of CPOT was translated into the Indonesian version following five steps: initial translation, synthesis of instrument translation results, back translation, validation of the instrument by an expert committee, and testing of the Indonesian instrument. Between September and December 2022, a total of 52 ICU patients from four hospitals in Indonesia were evaluated for pain at rest, during body-turning procedure, and 15 minutes after the procedure using the CPOT. The researcher used the verbal Faces Pain Thermometer (FPT) instrument as a gold standard to assess the CPOT's criteria validity. Validity assessments included content and criterion validity. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α coefficient and interrater reliability.

Results

Higher CPOT scores were found during the body-turning procedure than at rest and after the procedure. The instrument's item-content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.75 to 1.00, and the overall instrument's average scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.93. The statistical analysis revealed a positive correlation (r) between the CPOT and the patient's FPT scores (0.877-0.983, P < 0.01). The significant agreement amongst raters (κ) revealed the inter-rater reliability of the CPOT (0.739-0.834, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The Indonesian version of the CPOT has been proven valid and reliable in assessing pain in patients with critical illness and/or decreased LOC.

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.

The Validity of Vital Signs for Pain Assessment in critically Ill Adults: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Pain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging because many patients are unable to self-report or exhibit pain-related behaviors. In such situations, vital signs (VS) through continuous monitoring are alternative cues for pain assessment. This review aimed to describe the reliability and validity of VS for ICU pain assessment.

DESIGN

Narrative review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane.

REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS

A narrative review was conducted with a comprehensive search in four databases. Search terms included VS, pain assessment, and ICU.

RESULTS

Out of 1,359 results, 30 studies from 17 countries were included. Heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate were most used for ICU pain assessment. Assessments were performed at rest before procedures, during nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures, and after procedures. Increases in respiratory rate were clinically significant by more than 25% during nociceptive procedures (e.g., endotracheal suctioning, turning) compared with rest/pre-procedures in five studies. Correlations of VS with self-reported pain (reference standard measure) and behavioral pain scores (alternative measure) were absent or weak.

CONCLUSIONS

VS are not valid indicators for ICU pain assessment. Increases of respiratory rate may be a cue for the detection of pain. However, fluctuations in respiratory rate can be influenced by opioids or controlled ventilation mode. Our results dissuade the use of VS for pain assessment because of the lack of association with ICU pain reference standards. Other physiologic measures of pain in critically ill adults should be explored.

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.

Clinical Utility of the Behavioral Pain Assessment Tool in Patients Admitted in the Intensive Care Unit

Introduction

Unnoticed and unrelieved pain is one of the main sources of psychological and physiological stress for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The eight-item behavior pain assessment tool (BPAT) is a multicountry validated tool to assess pain in ICU patients. However, its feasibility and clinical utility for ICU patients in India need further research.

Aims and objectives

The Aims and objectives of the study were to assess pain using BPAT and its clinical utility in pain assessment and management in ICU patients.

Materials and methods

Following ethical approval, 400 consecutive adult patients admitted in the ICUs in a tertiary care teaching hospital were assessed for pain severity using BPAT at intake, baseline pain and procedural pain. Patients <18 years and in deep coma on the Glasgow coma scale were excluded from the study. The patients with BPAT score ≥4 were given opioid analgesic, and their pain was reassessed after 2-3 hours. A feedback regarding feasibility and clinical utility was filled by the doctors.

Results

High interrater agreement for BPAT was observed with excellent kappa coefficients (>0.85) for each item. The BPAT significantly guided the pain management (p < 0.0001). More than 90% of doctors found BPAT easy to understand and use. In most of the cases (95.5%), doctors agreed that BPAT can improve the clinical management of ICU patients.

Conclusion

The BPAT is a reliable, brief, and an easy-to-use pain assessment tool, which clinicians can use for guiding pain assessment and management in the ICU setting on a routine basis.

Clinical significance

We recommend implementing BPAT in the clinical practice for better pain assessment and control in ICU patients.

How to cite this article

Mitra S, Jain K, Singh J, Saxena P, Nyima T, Selvam SR, et al. Clinical Utility of the Behavioral Pain Assessment Tool in Patients Admitted in the Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(8):695-700.

Ignorance may be Bliss (for Intensivists), but not for ICU Patients!

How to cite this article: Bakshi SG, Kulkarni AP. Ignorance may be Bliss (for Intensivists), but not for ICU Patients! Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(4):161-162.