Impact of Implementing the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool on Nurses' Performance in Assessing and Managing Pain in the Critically Ill 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.

Pain assessment in intensive care units of a low-middle income country: impact of the basic educational course

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted to ICU usually have moderate-to-severe pain at rest and during care-related activities. The "Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT)" is a reliable and validated objective assessment tool for those patients who cannot self-report pain in ICU. The objectives of the educational course were to assess the baseline knowledge, and practice of pain assessment in critically ill patients and reassess the same in all participants of the course by comparing the results of pre and post-test.

METHODS

The educational course of six hours of contact time on the use of CPOT for pain assessment in ICU patients was designed and conducted by the authors after approval from the Ethics Review Committee, Aga Khan University. This educational course was delivered at five different tertiary care hospitals in the Sindh province of Pakistan. A pre-test consisting of 25 true/false multiple-choice questions was conducted at the beginning of the course to assess the baseline knowledge, and practice of participants regarding pain assessment in critically ill patients and the same test was taken at the end of the course.

RESULTS

A total of 205 critical care physicians and nursing staff attended the courses. Both pre-test and post-test were completed by 149 (72.6%) participants, of which 53 (35.6%) were female and 96 (64.4%) were male. The mean pre-test score of participants was 57.83 ± 11.86 and the mean post-test score of participants was 67.43 ± 12.96 and this was statistically significant (p = < 0.01). In univariate analysis, the effect of training was significantly higher in the female gender (p = 0.0005) and in those participants, who belong to the metropolitan city (p = 0.010). In multivariate analysis, participants from non-metropolitan cities showed less improvement in post-test scores compared to those who come from the metropolitan city (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

The participating physicians and nurses showed a positive impact on the knowledge and clinical skills regarding pain assessment in CIPs. The participants from hospitals in metropolitan cities showed a significant improvement over those who were from non-metropolitan cities.

Pain Assessment and Management in Intensive Care Unit: Nurses' Practices, Perceived Influencing Factors, and Educational Needs

Background:

Critically ill patients and those mechanically ventilated or unable to communicate may not be able to report any pain they experience. Consequently, pain assessment and management (PAM) is challenging and underestimated in intensive care units (ICUs), where patients suffer alteration of consciousness, sedation, invasive procedures and mechanical ventilation.

Aim:

This study aimed to investigate ICU nurses’ PAM practices, their perceptions of influencing factors, and their related educational needs.

Methods:

A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed, using a valid self-reported questionnaire.

Results:

Among the sample of 171 nurses, 55% were male and 83% held a bachelor’s degree. 60% reported performing pain assessment for patients able to report pain and 50% for those unable to do so. Almost 40% of participants reported that pain management plans and scores were not discussed in medical rounds. Workload and lack of guidelines were reported as the most common barriers to PAM, while the most common enablers were perceived to be prescribing analgesia and considering pain a priority. Nurses recognized the need for education regarding pain, especially the physiological (50%) and psychological (47%) consequences of untreated pain.

Conclusion:

Nurses’ reported performance of pain assessment for ICU patients remains suboptimal. Therefore, healthcare professionals, organizations, nursing schools, and policymakers should work together to improve nurses’ PAM knowledge and practices.

The effects of earplugs and eye masks on sleep quality of patients admitted to coronary care units: A randomised clinical trial

Sleep is an essential need for patients admitted to coronary care units. The present clinical trial aimed to determine the effect of using eye masks and earplugs on the sleep quality of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). A total of 68 eligible patients with CHD were randomly allocated into four groups of 17 (control, eye masks, earplugs, and eye masks with earplugs). All three interventions were performed during the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next day. The outcomes were the quality of sleep, measured by the Verran and Snyder-Halpern (VSH) Sleep Scale, and the urinary levels of nocturnal melatonin and cortisol, measured by urine samples taken during the night (from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The study outcomes were measured on the third and fourth days. Sleep disturbance was statistically significantly lower in patients with earplugs (visual analogue scale mean difference [MD]: 74.31 mm, SE: 11.34, p = 0.001). Sleep effectiveness was statistically significantly higher in patients with eye mask (MD: 36.88 mm, SE: 8.75, p = 0.001). The need for sleep supplementation was statistically significantly lower in patients with eye masks (MD: 39.79 mm, SE: 7.23, p = 0.001). There was a significant difference in melatonin levels between eye masks and the control group (p = 0.03). For urinary cortisol levels, there were significant differences between eye masks and the control group (p = 0.007), earplugs and the control group (p = 0.001), and eye masks with earplugs and the control group (p = 0.006). The mean scores for comfort, effectiveness, and ease of use were highest for the group that used eye masks (2.88, 2.94, and 3.18, respectively). As a result, all three interventions improved the sleep quality of patients. However, the interventions had different effects on the three dimensions of the VSH Sleep Scale, as well as the urinary levels of cortisol and melatonin.

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.