Methodological challenges in conducting instrumentation research in non-communicative palliative care patients.

Well-designed, rigorously implemented instrumentation studies are essential to develop valid, reliable pain assessment tools in non-communicative (non-self-reporting) palliative care patients. When conducting a pain instrumentation study, a research team identified methodologic challenges surrounding informed consent, eligibility criteria, acute pain operational definitions, patient recruitment, missing data, and study-related training during a run-in phase at the beginning of the project and during the conduct of the study. The team dealt with these challenges through identifying root causes, implementing remedial measures, and collecting data to demonstrate improvement or resolution. Effective strategies included obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for a waiver of informed consent, modifying eligibility criteria, ensuring that operational definitions and study procedures were consistent with clinical practice, decreasing time from screening to data collection to improve recruitment, increasing study nurse staffing by re-budgeting grant funds, focusing time and resources on high accruing clinical units, revising processes to minimize missing data, and developing detailed training for users of the instrument. With these multi-pronged solutions, the team exceeded the patient accrual target by 25% within the funding period and reduced missing data. While pain instrumentation studies in non-communicative patients have similar challenges to other palliative care studies, some of the solutions may be unique and several are applicable to other palliative care studies, particularly instrumentation research. The team's experience may also be useful for funders and IRBs.

Measuring Acute Pain Over Time in the Critically Ill Using the Multidimensional Objective Pain Assessment Tool (MOPAT).

BACKGROUND: A valid and reliable instrument is needed to assess acute pain in critically ill patients unable to self-report and who may be transitioning between critical care and other settings. AIM: To examine the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of the Multidimensional Objective Pain Assessment Tool (MOPAT) when used over time by critical care nurses to assess acute pain in non-communicative critically ill patients. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients had pain assessed at two time points (T1 and T2) surrounding a painful event for up to 3 days. Twenty-one ICU nurses participated in pain assessments and completed the Clinical Utility Questionnaire. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability coefficient alphas for the MOPAT were .68 at T1 and .72 at T2. Inter-rater agreement during painful procedures or turning was 68% for the behavioral dimension and 80% for the physiologic dimension. Validity was evidenced by decreases (p < .001) in the MOPAT total and behavioral and physiologic dimension scores when comparing T1 and T2. Nurses found the tool clinically useful. CONCLUSION: The MOPAT can be used in the critical care setting as a helpful tool to assess pain in non-communicative patients. The MOPAT is unique in that the instrument can be used over time and across settings.

Interprofessional Healthcare Students' Attitudes, Skills, and Knowledge After Comprehensive Pain Assessment Training in Verbal and Nonverbal Patients.

A comprehensive pain assessment is the first step in safe, effective pain management. Few studies have explored variations of strategies and measures for multidimensional pain assessment education in both verbal and nonverbal patients. In this retrospective cohort study, interprofessional health care students enrolled in a palliative care curriculum completed a pain assessment training, which taught the PQRSTA ("palliating factors, precipitating factors, previous treatments, quality, region, radiation, severity, temporal factors and associated symptoms") mnemonic as a strategy for assessing pain in verbal patients and the Pain Assessment in Advance Dementia and Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators measures for nonverbal patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the change in attitudes, self-perceived skills, and knowledge regarding pain assessment before and after the training. Attitudes and self-perceived skills were assessed in the pretraining and posttraining survey, which was analyzed using χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Students' knowledge responses were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess accuracy of responses compared with the expert defined score. One hundred eighty-two students were included. Results showed a statistically significant improvement in attitudes related to applicability of pain measures and self-perceived skills. Overall, data did not support an increase in knowledge using the PQRSTA mnemonic, or Pain Assessment in Advance Dementia and Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators measures. Future pain trainings should consider training on only 1 nonverbal pain measure, incorporating bedside assessments, and integrating real-time feedback.

Pain Assessment in Noncommunicative Adult Palliative Care Patients.

Palliative care patients who have pain are often unable to self-report their pain, placing them at increased risk for underrecognized and undertreated pain. Use of appropriate pain assessment tools significantly enhances the likelihood of effective pain management and improved pain-related outcomes. This paper reviews selected tools and provides palliative care clinicians with a practical approach to selecting a pain assessment tool for noncommunicative adult patients.