Validity and reliability of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition 15 (PAIC15) observation scale in persons with aphasia.

BACKGROUND: The use of self-report pain scales in persons with aphasia can be challenging due to communication and cognitive problems, while for assessing pain self-report pain is considered the gold standard (Harrison RA, Field TS. Post stroke pain: identification, assessment, and therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;39(3-4):190-201.). An observational scale may be used as an alternative. This study examines the validity and reliability of the observational Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) scale in persons with aphasia. METHODS: Persons with aphasia were observed during rest and transfer by two observers using the PAIC15. The PAIC15 comprises 15 items covering the three domains of facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. When able, the participant completed four self-report pain scales after each observation. The observations were repeated within one week. For criterion validity, correlations between the PAIC15 and self-report pain scales were calculated and for construct validity, three hypotheses were tested. Reliability was determined by assessing internal consistency, and intra- and interobserver agreement. RESULTS: PAIC15 observations were obtained for 71 persons (mean age 75.5 years) with aphasia. Fair positive correlations (rest: 0.35-0.50; transfer: 0.38-0.43) were reported between PAIC15 and almost all self-report pain scales. Results show that significantly more pain was observed in persons with aphasia during transfer than during rest. No differences were found for observed pain between persons with aphasia who use pain medication and those without, or persons who have joint diseases compared to those without. Results showed acceptable internal consistency. Intra- and interobserver agreement was high for most PAIC15 items, particularly for the domains body movements and vocalizations during rest and transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of pain in persons aphasia using the PAIC15 showed mixed yet promising results.

The effects of smoking on pain scores, vital signs, and analgesic consumption in patients undergoing tympanomastoidectomy surgery.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we investigate the effects of smoking on pain scores, vital signs, and analgesic consumption in the intraoperative and postoperative period in patients undergoing tympanomastoidectomy surgery. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists I-II status, aged 18-55 years, and who were planned to undergo tympanomastoidectomy surgery were divided into two groups: smokers (Group 1) and non-smokers (Group 2). The patients were compared for preoperative, intraoperative, and 24-hour postoperative carboxyhemoglobin, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, heart rate, pain intensity and verbal numerical rating scales, the extent of patient-controlled tramadol dose, nausea, and vomiting. RESULTS: There were 50 individuals in each group. Postoperative analgesic consumption and pain scores were higher in Group 1, and the first postoperative pain was felt earlier. Furthermore, in Group 1, preoperative carboxyhemoglobin levels and postoperative nausea were statistically higher before, after, and at the tenth minute after induction, whereas oxygen saturation was lower. The two groups had no statistical difference regarding intraoperative and postoperative vital signs. Postoperative analgesic consumption was not affected by age or gender. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking changes postoperative pain management, especially for this kind of operation, and these patients feel more pain and need more postoperative analgesic doses. Therefore, effective postoperative pain control should take account of smoking behavior, and analgesic doses may need to be adjusted for patients who smoke.

Measuring pain intensity in older patients: a comparison of five scales.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pain is common in older individuals. In order to understand and treat pain in this group, reliable and valid measures are needed. This study aimed to evaluate: (1) the validity, utility, incorrect response rates and preference rates of 5 pain rating scales in older individuals; and (2) the associations between age, education level, and cognitive function and both (a) incorrect response and (b) preference rates. METHODS: Two hundred and one orthopedic clinic outpatients ≥ 65 years old were asked to rate their current pain, and least, average, and worst pain intensity in the past week using 5 scales: Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS), Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Participants were also asked to indicate scale preference. We computed the associations between each measure and a factor score representing the shared variance among the scales, the incorrect response and scale preference rates, and the associations between incorrect response and preference rates and age, education level, and cognitive function. The incorrect responses included being unable to respond, providing more than one response, responses outside a range, providing range answers rather than fixed answers, and responses indicating 'least > average,' 'least > worst,' and 'average > worst'. RESULTS: The findings support validity of all 5 scales in older individuals who are able to use all measures. The VNRS had the lowest (2%) and the VAS had the highest (6%) incorrect response rates. The NRS was the most (35%) and the VAS was the least (5%) preferred. Age was associated with the incorrect response rates of the VRS and VAS, such that older individuals were less likely to use these scales correctly. Education level was associated with the incorrect response rates of the FPS-R, NRS and VAS, such that those with less education were less likely to use these measures correctly. Cognitive function was not significantly associated with incorrect response rates. Age, education level and cognitive function were not significantly associated with scale preference. CONCLUSIONS: Although all five scales are valid, the VNRS evidences the best overall utility in this sample of older individuals with pain. The NRS or FPS-R would be fine alternatives if it is not practical or feasible to use the VNRS.

Multidimensional versus unidimensional pain scales for the assessment of analgesic requirement in the emergency department: a systematic review.

Pain is a multidimensional experience, potentially rendering unidimensional pain scales inappropriate for assessment. Prior research highlighted their inadequacy as reliable indicators of analgesic requirement. This systematic review aimed to compare multidimensional with unidimensional pain scales in assessing analgesic requirements in the emergency department (ED). Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and PubMed Central were searched to identify ED studies utilizing both unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales. Primary outcome was desire for analgesia. Secondary outcomes were amount of administered analgesia and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers screened, assessed quality, and extracted data of eligible studies. We assessed risk of bias with the ROBINS-I tool and provide a descriptive summary. Out of 845 publications, none met primary outcome criteria. Three studies analyzed secondary outcomes. One study compared the multidimensional Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS) to the unidimensional Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for opioid administration. DVPRS identified more patients with moderate instead of severe pain compared to the NRS. Therefore, the DVPRS might lead to a potential reduction in opioid administration for individuals who do not require it. Two studies assessing patient satisfaction favored the short forms (SF) of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) over the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the NRS. Limited heterogenous literature suggests that in the ED, a multidimensional pain scale (DVPRS), may better discriminate moderate and severe pain compared to a unidimensional pain scale (NRS). This potentially impacts analgesia, particularly when analgesic interventions rely on pain scores. Patients might prefer multidimensional pain scales (BPI-SF, MPQ-SF) over NRS or VAS for assessing their pain experience.

Painful differences between different pain scale assessments: The outcome of assessed pain is a matter of the choices of scale and statistics.

OBJECTIVES: Perceived pain is a multi-factorial subjective variable, commonly measured by numeric rating scales, verbal descriptive scales (VDS), or by a position on an analogue line (VAS). A major question is whether an individual's VAS and VDS pain assessments, on the same occasion, could be comparable. The aim was to compare continuous and discretized VAS pain data with verbal descriptive pain datasets from the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D) in paired pain datasets. METHODS: The measurement level of data from any type of scale assessments is ordinal, having rank-invariant properties only. Non-parametric statistical methods were used. Two ways of discretizing the VAS-line to VAS-intervals to fit the number of the comparing VDS-categories were used: the commonly used (equidistant VAS,VDS)-pairs and the (unbiased VAS,VDS)-pairs of pain data. The comparability of the (VAS,VDS)-pairs of data of perceived pain was studied by the bivariate ranking approach. Hence, each pair will be regarded as ordered, disordered, or tied with respect to the other pairs of data. The percentage agreement, PA, the measures of disorder, D, and of order consistency, MA, were calculated. Total interchangeability requires PA = 1 and MA = 1. RESULTS: The wide range of overlapping of (VAS,VDS)-pairs indicated that the continuous VAS data were not comparable to any of the VDS pain datasets. The percentage of agreement, PA; in the (equidistant VAS,ODI) and (equidistant VAS, EQ-5D) pairs were 38 and 49%, and the order consistency, MA, was 0.70 and 0.80, respectively. Corresponding results for the (unbiased VAS,VDS)-pairs of pain data were PA: 54 and 100%, and MA: 0.77 and 1.0. CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed that perceived pain is the individual's subjective experience, and possible scale-interchangeability is only study-specific. The pain experience is not possible to be measured univocally, but is possible for the individual to rate on a scale.

Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages. RECENT FINDINGS: Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings. CONCLUSION: Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population.

Reliability of three pain assessment tools in children requiring dental treatment: A comparative clinical study.

Background: The appropriate intervention of pain is based on its accurate evaluation, which is a challenge in the pediatric population as they often do not have the language development or cognitive sophistication to describe it correctly. Untreated pain has a negative impact on the psychosocial well-being of children. Aim and Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the reliability of different pain assessment scales, namely, the Wong Baker Facial Pain Rating scale (WBFPS), Modified Emoji Pain Scale (MEPS), and indigenously developed indigenously made GIF Pain Scale (SPGPS) in children undergoing dental treatment under local anesthesia (LA). Materials and Methods: The study included 152 children aged 4-6 years with a Frankl behavior rating of score 3 and 4 (positive and definitely positive) requiring dental treatment under LA. After local infiltration, each child with two independent observers was asked to record the response of the current pain on the WBFPS, MEPS, and SPGPS. The reliability of the pain scales was assessed on the basis of similar responses given by all three individuals. Results: The Pearson correlation test was performed to determine the correlation among the scales. A very strong correlation was found between the WBFPS and SPGPS (r = 0.848), while a moderate correlation was found among the WBFPS and MEPS (r = 0.691). A strong correlation was found between the SPGPS and MEPS (r = 0.723). Conclusion: The SPGPS proved to be a more reliable pain assessment tool compared to the WBFPS and MEPS in clinical pediatric dentistry.

The recognition, assessment and perceptions of total pain in people with profound intellectual disabilities: A mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with profound intellectual disabilities are a population with complex comorbidities. Total pain recognises the interconnectedness of aspects of pain; social, psychological, physical, emotional, spiritual. Pain is under-recognised due to communication challenges and carers perceptions. This review's purpose is to synthesise current literature and provide guidance for future research and care. METHODS: Five databases were searched in this mixed methods systematic review (Cinahl, Medline, Psycinfo, Web of Science, Scopus). Articles retrieved were reported via a PRISMA flow diagram. Quality appraisal utilised the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). A convergent qualitative design was the method of data synthesis. RESULTS: Data from 16 included articles generated four themes; Absent voices, reductionist assessment, pain intensity, valuing expertise. Data included physical pain only. CONCLUSION: Multifaceted pain needs inclusion in research. Assessment must consider the unique expressions of pain by individuals with profound intellectual disabilities. A sharing of expertise may improve pain care.

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.

Attitudes to acute pain and the use of pain assessment scales among Spanish small animal veterinarians.

Evaluation of acute pain in dogs and cats is the basis for an appropriate treatment and improved well-being. The difficulties involved in pain assessment pose a challenge for veterinarians, and recent findings indicate that the most effective tools available-validated pain assessment scales-may not be widely utilized. Objectives: This study aimed to characterize the level of concern among Spanish veterinarians regarding acute pain in companion animals. Additionally, it sought to determine whether this concern correlates with the utilization of optimal assessment tools. Methods: A survey was conducted to explore Spanish veterinarians' attitudes toward pain and its assessment. The survey was distributed through two most prominent small animal veterinary associations, the Spanish association for veterinary anesthesia and analgesia, as well as key industry players committed to proactive pain management. Descriptive analysis of the collected data was performed using Excel and SPSS. Results: A total of 292 veterinarians participated in the study. A high level of concern regarding pain in dogs and cats was determined where 44% of surveyed veterinarians assessed pain in all patients. Despite an awareness of validated pain scales, only 28% used them. The preferred scales were the Glasgow CMPS for dogs (94%) and the Feline Grimace Scale for cats (93%). Among respondents who do not use these validated tools, there was a considerable interest in incorporating these scales into practice (85%) and considered lack of training was the most relevant issue (32%). Other challenges to scale utilization were identified, including constraints related to time, staffing, and the need to establish a habit. Conclusions and relevance: Spanish small animal veterinarians demonstrated a strong awareness to pain in their patients and employed various methods for pain assessment. However, a limited use of validated tools was identified and likely attributed to challenges such as a lack of established routine, time constraints, insufficient personnel, and, notably, a knowledge gap among veterinarians who do not employ pain assessment scales. The most commonly used scales were the Glasgow CMPS for dogs and the FGS for cats. Overall, these results suggest a window of opportunity for the implementation of training programs in small animal pain assessment at a national level.

Current attitudes and self-rated abilities of Bosnia and Herzegovina veterinarians toward pain recognition and quantification in domestic animals.

In previous years interest has grown in investigating the attitudes and capabilities of veterinarians regarding the recognition, quantification and treatment of animal pain throughout different parts of the world and encompassing various species. This is the first report exploring the attitudes and self-rated abilities of veterinarians in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) concerning recognition and quantification of pain in domestic animals. A study questionnaire was made available to 535 general practice veterinarians throughout B&H and 73 (14%) responded in full. The questionnaire contained polar, multiple choice, ordinal and interval scale questions and consisted of sections asking about demographic data, attitudes to pain recognition and quantification, use and availability of analgesics, estimates of pain intensity during specific surgical procedures, and the perceived need for pain assessment and continuing education programmes for analgesia. Half of the respondents considered the recognition and quantification of pain to be difficult while 89% did not make use of pain assessment scales. Of the respondents, (33/73; 45%) felt a certain level of pain to be advantageous since it reduces the activity of the healing animal, whereas 52% (38/73) did not agreed with this concept. Cost was a consideration when deciding whether or not to use analgesics for 58% (42/73) of the respondents with the most commonly used types being NSAIDs (72/73;99%) and opioids (60/73; 82%). Practitioners in B&H displayed awareness of the importance of pain assessment and management however a significant proportion were unaware of pain scales and relied upon physiological indicators of pain.

Evaluation and Treatment of Pain in Fetuses, Neonates and Children.

The perception of pain is individual and differs between children and adults. The structures required to feel pain are developed at 24 weeks of gestation. However, pain assessment is complicated, especially in neonates, infants and preschool-age children. Clinical scales adapted to age are the most used methods for assessing and monitoring the degree of pain in children. They evaluate several behavioral and/or physiological parameters related to pain. Some monitors detect the physiological changes that occur in association with painful stimuli, but they do not yet have a clear clinical use. Multimodal analgesia is recommended for pain treatment with non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. It is necessary to establish pharmacotherapeutic protocols for analgesia adjusted to the acute or chronic, type and intensity of pain, as well as age. The most used analgesics in children are paracetamol, ibuprofen, dipyrone, opioids (morphine and fentanyl) and local anesthetics. Patient-controlled analgesia is an adequate alternative for adolescent and older children in specific situations, such as after surgery. In patients with severe or persistent pain, it is very important to consult with specific pain services.

Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Methods, Such as Breastfeeding, to Mitigate Pain in NICU Infants.

Neonates do experience pain and its management is necessary in order to prevent long-term, as well as, short-term effects. The most common source of pain in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is caused by medically invasive procedures. NICU patients have to endure trauma, medical adhesive related skin injuries, heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection as well as nasogastric catheterization besides surgery. A cornerstone in pain assessment is the use of scales such as COMFORT, PIPP-R, NIPS and N-PASS. This narrative review provides an up to date account of neonate pain management used in NICUs worldwide focusing on non-pharmacological methods. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have well established adverse side effects and opioids are addictive thus pharmacological methods should be avoided if possible at least for mild pain management. Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly breastfeeding and non-nutritive sucking as primary strategies for pain management in neonates are useful strategies to consider. The best non-pharmacological methods are breastfeeding followed by non-nutritive sucking coupled with sucrose sucking. Regrettably most parents used only physical methods and should be trained and involved for best results. Further research in NICU is essential as the developmental knowledge changes and neonate physiology is further uncovered together with its connection to pain.

The Influence of Obesity on Pain and Function in Knee Osteoarthritis: Comparison of Body Mass Index With Seven Knee Function Scales and Two Pain Scales.

INSTRUCTION: Obesity is a health problem that is rapidly increasing both in local societies and internationally. It is well known that obesity has a risk relationship with many different diseases. The scale for obesity is Body Mass Index (BMI), which has been widely accepted worldwide for many years. The relationship between BMI and disease is a frequently studied topic. This study aimed to evaluate and measure knee function and pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients in radiologically advanced stage (Kellgren/Lawrence grade 3-4) who were scheduled for knee arthroplasty were administered seven knee osteoarthritis scales (Timed up and Go (TUG), American Knee Society Score (AKSS), the Lequesne Knee Index, Knee injury and Outcome Subtotal Pain Score (KOOS-PS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC)), and two pain scales, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and a visual analog pain scale (VAS), which were completed simultaneously on the same form. Data that did not show a normal distribution were analyzed with Spearman and Kendall correlation tests. RESULTS: The mean age of the 100 consecutive patients, 92% of whom were female, was 65.2 years (48-81 years). There was a strong correlation between BMI and all functional knee scales, but no significant association was found between pain scales and BMI. CONCLUSION: In our hypothesis, we expected that all functional and pain scales would moderately or strongly correlate with BMI. However, while a strong correlation with the functional pain scales is an expected result, the expected strong positive correlation between pain scales and BMI was not found in the study.

Validation of the parent's postoperative pain measure with an age-appropriate reference pain scale for children 2-12 years old during a 14-day recovery after tonsillectomy: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adenotonsillectomy is associated with severe postoperative pain. The parent's postoperative pain measure (PPPM), a 15-item instrument to measure a child's pain at home, has been validated with a seven-point faces scale in children 7-12 years and with the parents' global report of pain in children 2-6 years. AIMS: Our primary objective was to validate the PPPM with a recommended age-appropriate pain scale in children 2-12 years after adenotonsillectomy. Our secondary objective was to reduce the PPPM components and validate this reduced PPPM. METHODS: We recruited 319 children out of the 563 adenotonsillectomies performed between December 19, 2017, and December 18, 2018. Parents recorded administration of analgesics and their child's pain scores twice daily for 14 days: PPPM for all children and either the face, legs, arms, crying, consolability (FLACC) pain scale for children 2-3 years or the faces pain scale-revised (FPS-R) for children 4-12 years. In addition, parents recorded analgesics. RESULTS: Among the 354 eligible children, 9% of parents declined. 252 (79%) families submitted pain diaries. The median age was 2.9 [2.5-3.3] years for FLACC (n = 114) and 5.6 [4.5-7.2] years for FPS-R (n = 138). Across the 14-day recovery period, Cronbach's alpha for PPPM was 0.77 to 0.87. Generalized linear mixed models evaluated the association between PPPM and reference pain scales after adjustment for potential confounders. Time of day and postoperative days were included as predictors in the models. PPPM was strongly associated with FLACC and FPS-R (beta coefficient = 0.4; p < 0.0001). The association decreased over time, and the reduction was more significant for FPS-R than FLACC (beta coefficient = -0.13 vs. -0.04, respectively; p < 0.0001). There was a positive association between PPPM and the use of analgesics. A reduction analysis eliminated items from the original PPPM: four for FLACC and five for FPS-R, suggesting age-related differences. The reduced PPPM instruments achieved similar associations with their respective reference pain scales (beta coefficient = 0.5; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study extends previous work by validating the PPPM in children as young as 2 years with a recommended age-appropriate pain scale over 14-day convalescence after adenotonsillectomy. The reduced PPPM instruments differed in the two age groups. Future studies might explore these age-appropriate reduced PPPM instruments to assess pain at home following adenotonsillectomy.

Pain Evaluation in the Paediatric Emergency Department: Differences in Ratings by Patients, Parents and Nurses.

The pain experienced by paediatric patients is rarely evaluated in emergency departments. The aim of the present study was to compare the degree of conformity in patients' pain severity when assessed by themselves (if possible), their parents and a triage nurse trained in pain evaluation. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at a tertiary paediatric emergency department in Eastern Poland involving children (aged six months to eighteen years), their parents and nurses. The patients had their pain assessed while collecting a medical history. For children ≥ four years of age, the Numerical Rate Scale was used by patients, parents and nurses to evaluate pain. Patients under four years of age were evaluated by parents and nurses using the FLACC scale. RESULTS: Eighty patients and their parents were enrolled in the study. For children ≥ four years, patients rated their pain significantly higher than both their parents (p = 0.03) and nurses (p < 0.001), with the latter group producing the lowest scores. For children under four years of age, parental pain assessments did not significantly differ from those of nurses. CONCLUSION: Compared to the patients themselves and their parents, nurses tended to assign lower pain scores for children. Pain should be assessed on admission to the ED and, whenever possible, by the patients themselves.

A direct observation of pain scale use in five video-recorded palliative care consultations: Using conversation analysis to show how practitioners support patients to describe pain.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing pain intensity is an important palliative care task. Self-report pain intensity scales are frequently used within assessment. In contrast to formal studies of validity and reliability, we examine administration of, and responses to these scales in everyday palliative care. METHODS: We searched episodes of pain scale use in a dataset of (video/audio-recorded) UK palliative care consultations involving five doctors, 37 terminally ill patients and their companions. We found five, and applied the techniques and tools of conversation analysis to characterise scales' administration and functioning. RESULTS: Generally, the patients responded to scales by reporting multiple aspects of pain; the doctors supported and encouraged this. In two episodes, the scales generated misunderstandings. The doctors worked to resolve these in ways that avoided implying the patient was at fault. CONCLUSION: Pain intensity scales can yield richer information than just intensity. They can also generate misunderstandings and social friction which take skill and effort to resolve. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients tend to respond to pain intensity scales by reporting on multiple aspects of pain, professionals should support them in this. These scales sometimes generate misunderstandings. To preserve the therapeutic relationship, professionals should work to resolve these without implying the patient is to blame.

Communicating and understanding pain: Limitations of pain scales for patients with sickle cell disorder and other painful conditions.

Pain communication in healthcare is challenging. We examine use of pain scales to communicate pain severity via a case study of people with sickle cell disorder (SCD). We show how pain communication involves complex social interactions between patients, healthcare professionals and significant others - none of which are included in pain ratings. Failure to account for relational aspects of pain may cause problems for any patient. For SCD, mutual distrust shapes pain communication, further complicating clinical assessments. Moreover, SCD pain is particularly severe, making ratings hard to interpret compared with ratings from non-SCD patients, potentially exacerbating problems in managing pain relief.

Single- versus multi-port robotic partial nephrectomy: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and analgesic requirements.

Evidence supporting the safe use of the single-port (SP) robot for partial nephrectomy is scarce. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing robotic assisted SP vs multi-port (MP) partial nephrectomy (PN) in a time-matched cohort. All patients with clinically localized renal masses who underwent robotic PN from January 2019 to March 2020 were evaluated. Patients were stratified according to SP vs MP approach. Postoperative analgesia was administered in accordance with department-wide opioid stewardship protocol and outpatient opioid use was tracked. Total of 78 patients underwent robotic PN with 26 patients in the SP cohort. The majority of renal masses had low-complexity (53, 67.9%) R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores, without a significant difference between the two cohorts (p = 0.19). A retroperitoneal approach was performed in 16 (20.5%) patients overall, though more commonly via the SP robotic approach (13 vs 3, p < 0.001). Mean operative time for SP cases was 183.9 ± 63.5 min vs 208.6 ± 65.0 min in the MP cohort (p = 0.12). Rate of conversion to radical nephrectomy was 3.8% vs 9.6% for SP vs MP cases, respectively, (p = 0.37). The majority of patients were discharged on postoperative day one (67.9%) irrespective of operative approach (p = 0.60). There were no differences in inpatient milligram morphine equivalents administered (MME, p = 0.08) or outpatient postoperative MME prescribed (p = 0.21) between the two cohorts. In this retrospective single-institution study, SP robotic approach offers similar short-term perioperative outcomes to MP platforms for minimally invasive, nephron-sparing surgery. Using the SP system was not associated with a reduction in postoperative opioid analgesic requirements.