The Validity and Clinical Utility of the COVERS Scale and Pain Assessment Tool for Assessing Pain in Neonates Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit.

OBJECTIVES: Infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are routinely subject to a range of painful procedures. However, pain assessments in NICUs are under-utilized due to a lack of a gold standard pain measure. In this study we assessed the psychometric properties and clinical utility of the COVERS and Pain Assessment Tool (PAT), in a neonatal unit. METHODS: We had 72 nurses use the scales to assess pain at baseline and during a heel-lance procedure in 80 NICU infants. An independent research observer and the infant's mother also completed pain ratings. After the study, we assessed nurse preference and clinical utility ratings for both scales. RESULTS: The COVERS had satisfactory internal consistency at baseline (Cronbach α=0.74) and heel lance (α=0.78), as did the PAT (baseline α=0.79, heel lance α=0.85). Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated good inter-rater reliability at baseline and heel lance, respectively, for both the COVERS (0.82 and 0.80) and the PAT (0.83 and 0.86). There were strong associations between total scores on the 2 scales at baseline (r=0.81, P<0.001) and heel lance (r=0.91, P<0.001), between researcher's ratings and total COVERS (ρ=0.75, P<0.001) and PAT scores (ρ=0.69, P<0.001), and between maternal ratings and total COVERS (r=0.74, P<0.05) and PAT scores (r=0.65, P<0.05). Both scales were sensitive to pain and nonpain events. Reliability and validity was mostly upheld across gestational age. Most nurses preferred the COVERS (52%) to the PAT (16%), and 32% had no preference. DISCUSSION: This study builds on evidence for the COVERS scale and the PAT; both scales were reliable and valid measures of acute pain in neonates as premature as 24-week gestational age.

Does the early feedback of results improve reassurance following diagnostic testing? A randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing cardiac investigation.

OBJECTIVE: Providing reassurance is often a critical component of the medical consultation. An important area that has not been addressed in the literature is how delay in providing the results of medical tests affects patient reassurance. In this study we investigated whether the early provision of a normal diagnostic result immediately following medical testing improves patient reassurance compared to results provided 4 weeks later. METHOD: We conducted a longitudinal randomized controlled trial and 1-month follow-up. Fifty-one cardiology outpatients with no known cardiac pathology referred for an echocardiogram test were randomized following normal test results to receive their test results from a cardiologist either immediately following testing or 4 weeks later. Measures of symptoms, anxiety, and health perceptions were taken prior to diagnostic testing. Reassurance was assessed immediately after the results were provided and 1 month later. RESULTS: Data analysis showed that the provision of early results had no impact on patient reassurance. Cardiac anxiety was strongly associated with lower reassurance; patients who were more anxious about their heart were significantly less reassured by a normal test result, both immediately following feedback and 1 month later. CONCLUSIONS: The early provision of test results had no impact on patient reassurance. The study suggests the identification and targeting of patients high in cardiac anxiety may be a better method for improving reassurance than reducing the waiting time for results following medical testing.