• Nursing in critical care · Jan 2020

    Observational Study

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

    • Christian Emsden, Schäfer Ursi Barandun UB Surgical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland., Kris Denhaerynck, Florian Grossmann, Irena Anna Frei, and Monika Kirsch.
    • Medical Intensive Care Unit, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
    • Nurs Crit Care. 2020 Jan 1; 25 (1): 8-15.

    BackgroundNon-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.AimThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThis 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.Relevance To Clinical PracticeThe German CPOT version can be recommended for ICUs in German-speaking countries.© 2019 The Authors. Nursing in Critical Care published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd on behalf of British Association of Critical Care Nurses.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…