Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool Scores Research Articles

Exploration of the Nociception Level (NOL™) Index for Pain Assessment during Endotracheal Suctioning in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: An Observational and Feasibility Study

BackgroundMany patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) suffer from pain and are non-communicative. Therefore, alternative pain measures are necessary. Although behavioral pain measures are available, physiological measures are lacking. The Nociception Level index (NOL™) provides a value from combination of multiple physiological parameters to measure pain and its use in the ICU is new. AimTo explore the use of a multiple physiological parameter measure for pain assessment, the NOL™ index, in mechanically ventilated patients able to self-report pain in the ICU. MethodsA prospective cohort study was performed. Data were collected before, during, and 15 minutes after a non-nociceptive procedure (noninvasive blood pressure using cuff inflation) and a nociceptive procedure (endotracheal suctioning). NOL index, 0 to 10 pain intensity, and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) scores were also obtained. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Mann-Whitney tests. Feasibility of study procedures was described. ResultsOut of 28 patients who consented, 17 remained eligible and data were analyzed for 15. Technical issues prevented obtaining a NOL signal in 2 patients. NOL values were higher during endotracheal suctioning (median = 41.6) compared with before (median = 11.2) and after the procedure (median = 11.8) and compared with cuff inflation (median = 15.1; Friedman test, p < .001). NOL values were associated with pain intensity and CPOT scores (Mann-Whitney tests, p < .05). ConclusionsThe study procedures with the NOL were found feasible; NOL values could discriminate between nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures, and values were associated with reference pain measures. Further NOL testing is required in other ICU patient groups and procedures.

Validation of the Critical Care Pain Observational Tool in Palliative Care

PurposePain assessment at the end of life remains a problem for patients who are unable to self-report their pain when transitioning across care settings. This study therefore tested the internal consistency and discriminant, concurrent, and convergent validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observational Tool (French version) when used with end-of-life patients in a palliative care setting. DesignThis was a descriptive correlational study that used a repeated-measures within-subjects prospective design. MethodsThe pain of 13 patients was assessed when at rest and during turning. ResultsThe internal consistency reliability coefficient alphas were .64 at rest and .70 during turning. Discriminant validity was shown by a decrease in the total Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by the association between the patients' self-report of pain and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score at rest (0.65, p < .016) and during turning (0.77, p = .002). Finally, the convergent validity between the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score and the Algoplus scale score was demonstrated with a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.76 at rest and 0.84 during turning. ConclusionsThe results suggest that the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool can be used with end-of-life patients in French-speaking countries.

Analgesic sparing effects of Dexmedetomidine in surgical intensive care patients

Background: Dexmedetomidine (Dex) is a sedative agent with analgesic property.1,2 A recent review of the literature has shown clear advantages over the traditional sedation namely lesser respiratory depression, less delirium, better sedation, analgesia, organ protection and anti-shivering effect.3,4 Optimal sedation in critically ill patients is of vital importance, under sedation will raise work of breathing and causes adverse hemodynamic effects. Whereas over sedation will lead to increased number of imaging studies and higher morbidity and mortality.4,5 The aim of our study was to investigate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine (Dex), its use in intubated patients and post-extubation period, rescue sedation, safety and analgesic sparing effect in critically ill surgical patients. Patients and Methods: All patients sedated with dexmedetomidine (Dex) in the surgical intensive unit of a tertiary healthcare facility were included prospectively in the study. Patients' demographic data, diagnosis, surgical interventions, traditional sedation, Dex dosage and days, post-extubation Dex use, general adverse effects, adverse effects associated with lower or higher Dex doses, analgesic, and rescue sedation requirements were recorded. Patients were intubated and ventilated, the initial dose of Dex infusion was 0.5 mcg/kg/hr along with either fentanyl or remifentanil infusion. Dex infusion was titrated to keep the Ramsay sedation score of 3 to 4. Analgesia was titrated according to the NRS (numeric rating scale) in extubated patients and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) score in intubated patients. The infusion of fentanyl and remifentanil were titrated and decreased according to the CPOT score. Some of the patients extubated required continuation of the Dex infusion in the post-extubation period to maintain analgesia and to keep them calm.Chi-square test was performed to compare among the groups. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: A total of 428 patients were enrolled in the study. The majority of patients were male (73.3%). The most common diagnosis was acute abdomen and frequently the performed surgery was laparotomy (28.9%) (Figure 1a). The duration of Dex treatment ranged from 2 to 28 days; the most commonly used dose was 0.5 to 1.4 μg/kg/hours (Figure 1b). Seventy-eight percent (78%) of patients required Dex in the post-extubation period at a dose of 0.2 μg /kg/hours. There was significant reduction in the analgesic requirements in the post-Dex period (p < 0.001) (Table 1(a)). Adverse effects such as bradycardia 6.1%, hypertension 4% and hypotension 1.6% were observed (Figure 2) and there was no significant difference in lower and higher dose of Dex and occurrence of adverse effects (p < 0.82). Patients administered a higher dose of Dex required significantly higher rescue traditional sedation (p < 0.01) (Table 1(b)). Conclusion: We used dexmedetomidine in different surgical critical patients. The occurrence of adverse effects such as bradycardia, hypotension and hypertension were comparable to that mentioned in the literature. There was a significant analgesia sparing effect of dexmedetomidine. We continued Dex in the post-extubation period and the effective dose used was 0.2 mcg/kg/hour. There was no significant difference in occurrence of adverse effects with lower and higher range of Dex. The patients on a higher dose of Dex needed more rescue traditional sedation.

Pain Screening in the Older Adult With Delirium

BackgroundIn patients with cognitive impairments who are unable to self-report pain, nurses must rely on behavioral observation tools to assess and manage pain. Although frequently employed in medical-surgical units, evidence supporting the psychometric efficacy of the Pain in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) for pain screening in older adults with delirium is lacking. AimTo examine the psychometrics of the PAINAD for older adults with delirium in medical-surgical settings. DesignA descriptive repeated measures design. SettingMedical-surgical units in an urban tertiary care hospital. ParticipantsSixty-eight older adults with delirium. MethodsPatients with delirium unable to self-report pain were screened by two data collectors with the PAINAD and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). Patients with a PAINAD score ≥3 or a CPOT score ≥2 received a pain intervention. Pain assessments were repeated 30 minutes post baseline or pain intervention. ResultsPatients were predominately female (58.8%) with dementia (71%). Thirty-nine patients screened positive for pain and received a pain intervention. PAINAD reliability was strong (Cronbach's α = 0.81-0.87; interrater intraclass coefficients [ICC] = 0.91-0.94; test-retest ICC = 0.76-0.77). Construct validity was supported by a statistically significant interaction effect between time (baseline versus follow-up) and condition (pain intervention versus no pain group; Rater 1: F(1,66) = 8.31, p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.11; Rater 2: F(1,66) = 8.22, p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.11. ConclusionsThe PAINAD is a reliable and valid tool for pain screening for older adults with delirium in medical-surgical settings. Clinical ImplicationsPain and delirium frequently co-occur in the older adult population. Best practices require a holistic assessment for contributing pain and non-pain factors in patients exhibiting distress.

Validating a pain assessment tool in heterogeneous ICU patients: Is it possible?

Non-communicative adult ICU patients are vulnerable to inadequate pain management with potentially severe consequences. In German-speaking countries, there is limited availability of a validated pain assessment tool for this population. The aim of this observational study was to test the German version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in a heterogeneous adult ICU population. The CPOT's feasibility for clinical use was evaluated via a questionnaire. For validity and reliability testing, the CPOT was compared with the Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS) and patient's self-report in 60 patients during 480 observations simultaneously performed by two raters. The feasibility evaluation demonstrated high satisfaction with clinical usability (85% of responses 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale). The CPOT revealed excellent criterion validity [agreement between CPOT and BPS 94.0%, correlation of CPOT and BPS sum scores r = 0.91 (P < .05), agreement of CPOT with patient self-report 81.4%], good discriminant validity [mean difference of CPOT scores between at rest and non-painful stimulus 0.33 (P < .029), mean difference of CPOT scores between at rest, and painful stimulus 2.19 (P < .001)], for a CPOT cut-off score of >2 a high sensitivity and specificity (93% and 84%), high positive predictive value (85%), and a high negative predictive value (93%). The CPOT showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.79) and high inter-rater reliability [90% agreement, no differences in CPOT sum scores in 64.2% of observations, and correlation for CPOT sum scores r = 0.72 (P < .05)]. Self-report obtained in patients with delirium did not correlate with the CPOT rating in 62% of patients. This is the first validation study of the CPOT evaluating all of the described validity dimensions, including feasibility, at once. The results are congruent with previous validations of the CPOT with homogeneous samples and show that it is possible to validate a tool with a heterogeneous sample. Further research should be done to improve pain assessment and treatment in ICU patients with delirium. The German CPOT version can be recommended for ICUs in German-speaking countries.

Validation of a Chinese version critical-care pain observation tool in nonintubated and intubated critically ill patients: Two cross-sectional studies.

To validate the Chinese version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in nonintubated and intubated ICU patients. While CPOT was found to have the best psychometric properties among objective pain assessment scales, there is no Chinese version CPOT for nonintubated patients. Cross-sectional design was used in these two observational studies. Seventy-six nonintubated patients and 53 intubated patients were assessed to examine internal consistency, criterion-related and discriminative validity of CPOT in the first study. Pain assessment during low pain condition as well as increased pain condition was performed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Chinese version COPT. Forty nonintubated patients and 43 intubated patients were assessed to examine inter-rater reliability in the second study. A bedside nurse and a researcher independently executed paired pain assessments with CPOT in the same conditions. The STROBE Statement was followed to guide these studies. The Cronbach's α in nonintubated patients and intubated patients was 0.903-0.930 and 0.868-0.870. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in nonintubated patients ranged from 0.959-0.982, and the ICC in intubated patients ranged from 0.947-0.959, confirming the inter-rater reliability. The moderately positive Pearson's correlations between CPOT and NRS scores (r=0.757-0.838 in nonintubated patients, r=0.574-0.705 in intubated patients) indicated the criterion-related validity. A significant increase in CPOT scores in the increased pain condition compared with those acquired in the low pain condition verified the discriminative validity. The Chinese version of CPOT was presented to be valid and reliable for both nonintubated and intubated critically ill adults, which could be applicable for pain assessment in patients in ICU. This study provides an applicable pain assessment tool for both nonintubated patients and intubated patients in ICU.

Family Members’ Experiences with Observing Pain Behaviors Using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool

BackgroundCurrent guidelines support family members' participation in care, but little is known regarding their potential contribution to pain assessment using validated behavioral pain scales. AimsThis study aimed to describe family members’ observations of pain behaviors with the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and their evaluation of the tool and its use, and to understand their experience and perceptions of their potential role in pain management in the intensive care unit. DesignA mixed methods cross-sectional explanatory design was used. SettingA medical-surgical intensive care unit in Canada. Participants/SubjectsFamily members were eligible if they had a loved one admitted in the intensive care unit who was unable to self-report. MethodsFamily members identified pain behaviors using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool after a brief training, completed a self-administered questionnaire, and participated in a follow-up individual interview regarding their experience and perceived potential role in pain management when their loved one is unable to self-report. ResultsTen family members participated. A 15-minute training appeared sufficient for family members to be comfortable with observing pain behaviors included in the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. The tool allowed them to confirm their observations of pain behaviors, to focus more on the patient, and to advocate for better pain management. ConclusionsFuture research is needed to explore the views of more family members and to compare their Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores to the ones of nurses' for interrater reliability testing.

Validation of The Critical-care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) for the detection of oral-pharyngeal pain in critically ill adults

ObjectiveMechanically ventilated patients experience pain at rest and during daily care procedures. Our objective was to test the reliability and validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to detect oral-pharyngeal pain in intubated and tracheostomised adults during routine oral care procedures. Materials and MethodsTwo trained research team members independently observed patients during two non-painful (rest and gentle touch) and three potentially painful (oral suctioning, tooth brushing, and swabbing with a sponge toothette) procedures. Conscious patients were asked if they experienced pain during each procedure (yes/no) and to rate their pain intensity on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale. ResultsA total of 98 patients, primarily intubated (92.9%) and male (63.3%) participated. Criterion validation was supported by patient self-report of pain during tooth brushing (AUC=.80; P<0.5) and oral suction (AUC=.72; P<0.3) but not for oral swabbing (AUC=.68; P=0.16). Discriminative validation was demonstrated for all oral care procedures compared to rest (P<.001). Intra-class correlation coefficients between raters ranged from .78 to .91 (P<.001) for total CPOT scores, indicating excellent inter-rater reliability. ConclusionsThe CPOT is reliable and valid for the detection of oral-pharyngeal pain during oral care procedures indicated as painful by critically ill adults.

Validation of Two Pain Assessment Tools Using a Standardized Nociceptive Stimulation in Critically Ill Adults

ContextThe Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) or the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are recommended in practice guidelines for pain assessment in critically ill adults unable to self-report. However, their use in another language requires cultural adaptation and validation testing. ObjectivesCross-cultural adaptation of the CPOT and BPS English versions into Brazilian Portuguese, and their validation by comparing behavioral scores during rest, standardized nociceptive stimulation by pressure algometry (SNSPA), and turning were completed. In addition, we explored clinical variables that could predict the CPOT and BPS scores. MethodsA prospective cohort study was conducted with 168 medical-surgical critically ill adults unable to self-report in the intensive care unit. Two nurses were trained to use the CPOT and BPS Brazilian Portuguese versions at the following assessments: 1) baseline at rest, 2) after SNSPA with a pressure of 14 kgf/cm2, 3) during turning, and 4) 15 minutes after turning. ResultsInter-rater reliability of nurses' CPOT and BPS scores was supported by high weighted kappa >0.7. Discriminative validation was supported with higher CPOT and BPS scores during SNSPA or turning in comparison to baseline (P < 0.001). The Glasgow Coma Scale score was the only variable that predicted CPOT and BPS scores with explained variance of 44.5% and 55.2%, respectively. ConclusionThe use of the Brazilian CPOT and BPS versions showed good reliability and validity in critically ill adults unable to self-report. A standardized procedure, the SNSPA, was used for the first time in the validation process of these tools and helped us improve the validation process.

Efficacy and safety of nalbuphine on analgesia of patients in intensive care unit

To analyze the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine in patients with sedative analgesia in intensive care unit (ICU). A prospective observation was conducted. The adult patients with mild and moderate analgesia in general ICU of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January to November in 2017 were enrolled, and they were divided into nalbuphine group and sufentanil group in proper order. The nabobrown group was given 40 mg nabobrown, the sufentanil group was given 0.1 mg sufentanil, both of which were injected with 50 mL normal saline for continuous intravenous infusion in micro-pump. Infusion speed was checked according to pain level. The analgesic target was critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) score < 2. The change in hemodynamics of patients in both groups were observed, and CPOT score and Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) score were recorded before and l, 3, 5, 12, 24 hours after administration. The analgesic and sedative effects of two drugs were evaluated. A total of 141 patients were enrolled, including 71 patients in nalbuphine group and 70 in sufentanil group. There was no significant difference in general data including gender, age, body weight, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) or pain source, as well as baseline hemodynamics parameter between the two groups. At 1 hour and 3 hours after administration, nalbuphine had no effect on blood pressure, but the heart rate was decreased slightly, while the heart rate and blood pressure of the sufentanil group were decreased obviously. The two drugs could make the heart rate and blood pressure fluctuate obviously with the time of medication, but there was no statistical difference between the two drugs. The two drugs had no significant effect on pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) during analgesia. The average dosage of nalbuphine was 0.03 (0.02, 0.05) mg×kg-1×h-1 in the nalbuphine group, and the patient was satisfied with the analgesic effect until 3 hours after the use of the drug, and CPOT score was significantly decreased as compared with that before administration [1.0 (1.0, 2.0) vs. 3.0 (2.0, 4.0), P < 0.01], and the sedative effect was increased, RASS score was significantly lower than that before administration [0 (0, 1.0) vs. 1.0 (1.0, 2.0), P < 0.01]. No patients in naporphine group were treated with sufentanil due to unsatisfactory analgesia. The average dosage was 0.11 (0.06, 0.14) μg×kg-1×h-1 in the sufentanil group, the patient was satisfied with the analgesic effect until 5 hours after administration, and the CPOT score was significantly lower than that before administration [1.0 (1.0, 2.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 6.0), P < 0.01], and the sedative effect was significantly increased, RASS score was significantly lower than that before administration [0 (-1.0, 0) vs. 2.0 (1.0, 2.0), P < 0.01]. The scores of CPOT and RASS in the sufentanil group were significantly higher than those of the naporphine group before use, so the decrease in the CPOT and RASS scores of the two drugs was further analyzed, which indicated the decrease in CPOT score of naporphine group was significantly lower than that in sufentanil group from 3 hours on [1.0 (0, 2.0) vs. 2.0 (1.0, 3.0), P < 0.05], and the decrease in RASS score of naporphine group was significantly lower than that in sufentanil group from 1 hour on [0 (0, 1.0) vs. 1.0 (0, 2.0), P < 0.01]. It suggested that naporphine could achieve sustained and stable analgesic effect and avoid excessive sedation caused by sufentanil. Naporphine had a sustained and stable analgesic effect on patients with mild and moderate ICU analgesia. The onset time of naporphine was equivalent to sufentanil, and it had a certain sedative effect and less influence on hemodynamics.

Validation of two Chinese-version pain observation tools in conscious and unconscious critically ill patients

ObjectivesTo compare the construct validities of the Chinese-versions Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and Behavioural Pain Scale as measures of critically ill patients’ pain by (a) discriminant validation of behavioural scales and vital signs (e.g. heart rate and mean arterial pressure) during a non-nociceptive procedure (noninvasive blood pressure] assessment) and a nociceptive procedure (endotracheal suctioning), (b) criterion validation of behavioural scales and vital signs with patients’ self-reported pain and (c) testing the interrater reliability of both scores. Research methodology/designIn this crossover, observational study, pain responses of 316 critically ill patients (213 conscious; 103 unconscious) were measured by both the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioural Pain Scale scores, vital signs and self-report (if conscious) during noninvasive blood pressure assessment and endotracheal suctioning procedures. Interrater reliability was tested in nociceptive procedures of a pilot study on 20 critically ill patients. Data were analysed by descriptive statistics, multiple logistic regression analysis and receiver-operating characteristic curves. SettingA medical intensive care unit in a regional teaching hospital in northern Taiwan. ResultsPatients’ self-reported pain was predicted by total Critical Care Pain Observation Toolscores (odds ratio=1.93, p<0.01) and total Behavioural Pain scores (odds ratio=1.83, p<0.01) but not by vital signs after controlling for patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics. Moreover, Chinese-versions had areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 76.4% and 73.1%, respectively, indicating good ability to detect pain. ConclusionsThe Chinese-versions of the Critical care Pain Observation Toll and Behavioural Pain Score have good construct validity and can sensitively discriminate when critically ill patients experience pain or no pain.

Is near infrared spectroscopy valid for the detection of procedural pain in postoperative cardiac surgery intensive care unit adults?

This study aimed to examine the validity of the regional cerebral oxygenation using the near infrared spectroscopy technique for pain assessment in postoperative cardiac surgery adults in the intensive care unit. The near infrared spectroscopy for the assessment of pain has been studied in pediatric population, but its use in adult population especially in the critically ill is new. A total of 125 cardiac surgery intensive care unit patients from a Canadian university-affiliated hospital participated in this prospective repeated-measures study. Six assessments were completed at rest before, during, and 15 min after two procedures: (1) non-nociceptive (blood pressure measurement using cuff inflation) and (2) nociceptive (mediastinal tube removal). Regional cerebral oxygenation (%) was measured using the INVOS 5100 device (Somanetics, Troy, MI, USA). The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool was employed to assess behavioral responses to pain. Self-reports of pain intensity and unpleasantness using 0–10 scales were also obtained. Participants were mostly males (89%) and averaged 65 of age. Regional cerebral oxygenation showed significant mild bilateral decreases (&lt;1%; p&lt;0.01) while higher mean Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores, pain intensity, and unpleasantness self-reports were obtained during mediastinal tube removal ( p &lt; 0.001). Only the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score was mildly correlated to the right side regional cerebral oxygenation ( r −0.23; p &lt; 0.01). Changes in regional cerebral oxygenation were mild and in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, the findings do not support the clinical use of the INVOS 5100 (Somanetics, Troy, MI, USA) and its regional cerebral oxygenation hemodynamic parameter for the assessment of pain in the cardiac surgery critically ill patients.

Controlled sedation with midazolam and analgesia with nalbuphine to alleviate pain in patients undergoing subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to transvenous ICD to prevent sudden cardiac death. Subcutaneous ICD implantation frequently requires general anesthesia because of procedure nociceptive steps during creation of a large device pocket and lead tunneling. This study aims to determine if a strategy of operator-guided controlled sedation with midazolam and analgesia with nalbuphine is effective in alleviating pain during S-ICD implantation. This prospective study included consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation under controlled sedation with midazolam and combined analgesia with nalbuphine. The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), a behavioral pain scale, was used for pain assessment during S-ICD placement and the Numeric Rate Scale (NRS) was used for evaluation of pain recollection after patient recovery. CPOT score of 3 or above and NRS score of 4 or above are considered to be associated with significant pain. Sixteen patients were included in this study: Ten men (62.5%) and six women with a mean age of 54±11years. Indication for S-ICD implantation was primary prevention in 11 patients (68.8%). Mean dose of administrated midazolam and nalbuphine was 0.11±0.03 and 0.27±0.05mg/kg, respectively. Mean CPOT during the whole procedure was 1.4±1.6. No patient presented procedural pain recollection as all 16 patients had NRS score less than 4. No serious adverse event related to sedation occurred during S-ICD implantation. This study suggests that operator-guided controlled sedation with midazolam and analgesia with nalbuphine is effective to alleviate procedural pain in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation and may constitute an alternative to general anesthesia.

Pain Measurement in Mechanically Ventilated Patients After Cardiac Surgery: Comparison of the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT)

The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are behavioral pain assessment tools for sedated and unconscious critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant validation of the BPS and the CPOT simultaneously in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. A prospective, observational cohort study. A 20-bed closed-format intensive care unit with mixed medical, surgical, and cardiac surgery patients in a teaching hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The study comprised 72 consecutive intubated and mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery who were not able to self-report pain. Two nurses assessed the BPS and CPOT simultaneously and independently at the following 4 moments: rest, a nonpainful procedure (oral care), rest, and a painful procedure (turning). Both scores showed a significant increase of 2 points between rest and turning. The median BPS score of nurse 1 showed a significant increase of 1 point between rest and the nonpainful procedure (oral care), whereas both median CPOT scores did not change. The interrater reliability of the BPS and CPOT showed fair-to-good agreement of 0.74 overall. During the periods of rest 1 and rest 2, values ranged from 0.24 to 0.46. Cronbach's alpha values for the BPS were 0.62 (nurse 1) and 0.59 (nurse 2) compared with 0.65 and 0.58, respectively, for the CPOT. The BPS and CPOT are reliable and valid pain assessment tools in a daily clinical setting. However, the discriminant validation of both scores seems less satisfactory in sedated or agitated patients and this topic requires further investigation.

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.

IntroductionPain 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 methodsThe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThis 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.

Validation of the Italian version of the Critical Pain Observation Tool in brain-injured critically ill adults.

Background and aim: Pain in intensive care units (ICUs) is a frequent and often undermanaged problem. Brain-injured patients are often unable to reliably self-report their pain, calling forth the need to use behavioural scales such as the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the Italian CPOT use with brain-injured ICU adults. Method: A sample of 50 adults critical care patients was included. Each patient was assessed by two independent observers at three predefined times – at rest; during mobilization for hygiene; 20 minutes later – using the CPOT, PAINAD, and NRS. Results: A good correlation was found between independent observers scores during painful procedure, establishing interrater reliability of CPOT. Criterion validation was supported by a strong correlation between CPOT and PAINAD scores, and a moderate relation between CPOT and NRS scores. The CPOT was able to discriminate between patients undergoing painful versus non-painful procedures. However, PAINAD performed better in this sample, as revealed by the comparison between the two AUC of ROC curves. Conclusions: The Italian CPOT use was found reliable and valid in this patient group.

Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and Behavioral Pain Scale to assess pain in critically ill conscious and unconscious patients: prospective, observational study.

BackgroundCritically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) may suffer from different painful stimuli, but the assessment of pain is difficult because most of them are almost sedated and unable to self-report. Thus, it is important to optimize evaluation of pain in these patients. The main aim of this study was to compare two commonly used scales for pain evaluation: Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), in both conscious and unconscious patients. Secondary aims were (1) to identifying the most relevant parameters to determine pain scales changes during nursing procedures, (2) to compare both pain scales with visual analog scale (VAS), and (3) to identify the best combination of scales for evaluation of pain in patients unable to communicate.MethodsIn this observational study, 101 patients were evaluated for a total of 303 consecutive observations during 3 days after ICU admission. Measurements with both scales were obtained 1 min before, during, and 20 min after nursing procedures in both conscious (n.41) and unconscious (n.60) patients; furthermore, VAS was recorded when possible in conscious patients only. We calculated criterion and discriminant validity to both scales (Wilcoxon, Spearman rank correlation coefficients). The accuracy of individual scales was evaluated. The sensitivity and the specificity of CPOT and BPS scores were assessed. Kappa coefficients with the quadratic weight were used to reflect agreement between the two scales, and we calculated the effect size to identify the strength of a phenomenon.ResultsCPOT and BPS showed a good criterion and discriminant validity (p < 0.0001). BPS was found to be more specific (91.7 %) than CPOT (70.8 %), but less sensitive (BPS 62.7 %, CPOT 76.5 %). COPT and BPS scores were significantly correlated with VAS (p < 0.0001). The combination of BPS and CPOT resulted in better sensitivity 80.4 %. Facial expression was the main parameter to determine pain scales changes effect size = 1.4.ConclusionsIn critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, both CPOT and BPS can be used for assessment of pain intensity with different sensitivity and specificity. The combination of both BPS and CPOT might result in improved accuracy to detect pain compared to scales alone.Trial registration NCT01669486

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool With Seriously Ill Patients

The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool is a behavioral scale recommended for pain assessment in nonverbal critically ill adults. Although the use of this tool was validated in various critical care patient groups, little is known about its validity of use in seriously ill patients at high risk of dying in the intensive care unit, which is the purpose of this study. A prospective cohort study with repeated-measure within-subject design was conducted in a Canadian intensive care unit. Two trained raters assessed the pain of 22 participants with the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool before, during, and 15 minutes after a nonnociceptive procedure (gentle touch) and a nociceptive procedure (turning). Interrater reliability and discriminant validation were examined. Intraclass correlation coefficients greater than 0.75 between the raters’ scores supported interrater reliability. Higher Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores were found during turning compared with gentle touch (P &lt; 0.01), demonstrating discriminant validation. The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool seems to be valid, can be used consistently, and is able to discriminate painful from nonpainful conditions in the nonverbal critically ill adults at high risk of dying.

Impact of an Analgesia-Based Sedation Protocol on Mechanically Ventilated Patients in a Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Recent attention to adverse effects of intensive care unit (ICU) sedation has led to the use of strategies that target a "lighter" depth of sedation. Among these strategies are "analgosedation" protocols, which prioritize pain management and preferentially use IV opioids before administration of continuously infused sedatives such as propofol or midazolam. We hypothesized that using an analgosedation protocol would result in a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than a protocol with greater emphasis on IV sedatives : We conducted a retrospective study comparing the duration of mechanical ventilation before and after implementation of an analgosedation protocol in a 24-bed medical ICU. Patients were aged 18 years or older and required mechanical ventilation where a light level of sedation was clinically appropriate. Exclusion criteria included a clinical need for deeper levels of sedation or tracheal intubation confined to the perioperative period. Seventy-nine patients were included in the postimplementation group and 65 in the preimplementation group. After adjustment for baseline covariates, introduction of the 2013 analgosedation protocol was associated with a decreased duration of mechanical ventilation (-26.62 hours; 95% confidence interval, - 44.98 to -8.26, P = 0.005). Patients managed with the analgosedation protocol experienced a lighter level of sedation (median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, -2.57 vs -1.25, P = 0.001) and improved pain management (median Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score, 2.0 vs 1.5, P = 0.03). The use of continuously infused sedatives was reduced by 54.3% (92.3% vs 38.0%, P < 0.001). Our findings suggest that implementation of an analgosedation protocol was associated with an overall lighter level of sedation, shorter mean ventilator duration, and a reduced use of continuous infusion sedatives. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such protocols on ICU delirium.

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and Vital Signs in Relation to the Sensory and Affective Components of Pain During Mediastinal Tube Removal in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit Adults.

The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) is a behavioral scale recommended in clinical practice guidelines for the assessment of pain in nonverbal intensive care unit (ICU) adults. Although the CPOT has been validated in various ICU patient groups, its association with the affective component of pain has not yet been explored, and in most studies, turning was the used nociceptive procedure. In this study, we aim to validate the use of the CPOT and vital signs in association with the sensory and affective components of pain during mediastinal tube removal (MTR) in postoperative cardiac surgery ICU adults. A sample of 125 patients participated in this prospective repeated-measures, within-subject study. A total of 6 assessments of the main study variables (CPOT scores and patients' self-reports of pain intensity and unpleasantness) were completed by trained research assistants while patients were in the ICU. Assessments were done before, during, and 15 minutes after the nonnociceptive procedure (ie, noninvasive blood pressure taking [NIBP]) and nociceptive procedure (ie, MTR). Discriminant validation of the scale use was supported as higher CPOT scores were obtained during MTR (mean [SD], 2.74 [1.61]) compared with NIBP (mean [SD], 0.50 [0.747]) (t124 = 14.33, P < .001). Similarly, higher values were recorded for mean arterial pressure and heart and respiratory rates during MTR compared with NIBP (P < .01). During MTR, CPOT scores correlated significantly with self-report of pain intensity (r = 0.419, P < .01) and unpleasantness (r = 0.313, P < .01), supporting criterion and convergent validation. Conversely, vital signs did not correlate with either self-report. Study findings confirmed the validity of the CPOT for the assessment of the sensory and affective components of pain in the postcardiac surgery ICU adults. Vital signs were not specific to pain and should be used only as cues to begin further assessment of pain using validated instruments for this purpose.