Agreement of Revised Premature Infant Pain Profile Scoring between Healthcare Providers and Laypersons: A Cross-sectional Study

Abstract

Introduction: The experience of pain during the neonatal period has short and long-term consequences. The Revised Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP-R) is a globally accepted and validated tool for assessing pain in neonates. Adequate pain management measures can be implemented using the PIPP-R, even in the absence of consultants. Aim: To assess the agreement among healthcare providers and laypersons in scoring the PIPP-R. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Shree Krishna Hospital, a rural Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in central Gujarat, India. The duration of the study was one year and six months, from January 2021 to June 2022. The study included 12 volunteers from various fields, such as consultant neonatologists, first year postgraduate students in Department of Paediatrics, neonatal nurses, social workers, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) interns, and mothers of newborns. A neonatology consultant provided training on the PIPP-R scoring system using handouts and a presentation. The volunteers then evaluated 100 prerecorded videos of newborns undergoing painful procedures. Agreement between volunteers for the total PIPP-R score and its subcomponents was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and Cohen’s Kappa statistics. Results: A total of 100 videos of newborns (51 girls, 49 boys) undergoing painful procedures were evaluated for the PIPP-R score. The mean age, gestational age, and birth weight of the newborns were 2.21±1.55 days, 37±2.44 weeks, and 2.56±0.72 kg, respectively. The procedures included heel prick for Random Blood Sugar (RBS) (44%), intravenous sampling/insertion (34%), and intramuscular vitamin K injection (22%). The mean difference with 95% Confidence Limits (CL) of total PIPP-R scores between the two consultants (neonatologists) was -0.640 (-5.196, 3.916). The length of the CL was -9.112, which fell outside the defined CL of 4.2 (20% of the total score), indicating unacceptable agreement between the two consultants. Similarly, agreement between each consultant and any of the other participants, including residents, nurses, interns, mothers, and social workers, regarding the total PIPP-R score, as well as its subcomponents, was also deemed unacceptable. Conclusion: The present study concluded that the inter-rater reliability of the PIPP-R score and its subcomponents was unacceptable between consultants and with any of the other participants.