A Psychometric Analysis Update of Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools for Noncommunicative, Critically Ill Adults.

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Content validation of behaviours and autonomic responses for the assessment of pain in critically ill adults with a brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The evidence shows that brain-injured patients express behaviours that are related to their level of consciousness (LOC), and different from other patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, existing behavioural scales should be revised to enhance their content and validity for use in these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the content relevance of behaviours and autonomic responses for pain assessment of brain-injured ICU patients from the perspective of critical care clinicians. METHODS: A total of 77 clinicians from four adult neuroscience ICUs (three from Canada and one from the United States) participated in this descriptive study. A physician/nurse ratio of 21% (13/61) was reached in this quota sample, and three physiotherapists also participated. They completed a content validation questionnaire of 19 items rated on clarity and relevance based on the patient's LOC. Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI), and modified kappa (κ*) were calculated. Values higher than 0.78 and 0.75 respectively were considered excellent. RESULTS: Regardless of the patient's LOC, brow lowering, grimacing, and trying to reach the pain site were rated as the most relevant behaviours by clinicians, with excellent values of I-CVI>0.78 and κ*>0.75. Eyes tightly closed, moaning and verbal complaints of pain also obtained excellent values in altered LOC and conscious patients. Eye weeping obtained excellent values only in conscious patients. Other items showed fair (0.40-0.59) to good (0.60-0.74) values, while blinking and coughing showed poor values (<0.40) at various LOC. CONCLUSIONS: Facial expressions, movements towards the pain site, and vocalisation of pain were the most relevant pain-related behaviours rated by critical care clinicians. The relevance of some behaviours (e.g., moaning and verbal complaints of pain) varied across LOCs, thereby calling forth adaptations of behavioural pain scales to allow for interpretation in the context of a patient's LOC and ability to express specific behaviours.

The Behavior Pain Assessment Tool for critically ill adults: a validation study in 28 countries.

Many critically ill adults are unable to communicate their pain through self-report. The study purpose was to validate the use of the 8-item Behavior Pain Assessment Tool (BPAT) in patients hospitalized in 192 intensive care units from 28 countries. A total of 4812 procedures in 3851 patients were included in data analysis. Patients were assessed with the BPAT before and during procedures by 2 different raters (mostly nurses and physicians). Those who were able to self-report were asked to rate their pain intensity and pain distress on 0 to 10 numeric rating scales. Interrater reliability of behavioral observations was supported by moderate (0.43-0.60) to excellent (>0.60) kappa coefficients. Mixed effects multilevel logistic regression models showed that most behaviors were more likely to be present during the procedure than before and in less sedated patients, demonstrating discriminant validation of the tool use. Regarding criterion validation, moderate positive correlations were found during procedures between the mean BPAT scores and the mean pain intensity (r = 0.54) and pain distress (r = 0.49) scores (P < 0.001). Regression models showed that all behaviors were significant predictors of pain intensity and pain distress, accounting for 35% and 29% of their total variance, respectively. A BPAT cut-point score >3.5 could classify patients with or without severe levels (≥8) of pain intensity and distress with sensitivity and specificity findings ranging from 61.8% to 75.1%. The BPAT was found to be reliable and valid. Its feasibility for use in practice and the effect of its clinical implementation on patient pain and intensive care unit outcomes need further research.

A validated approach to evaluating psychometric properties of pain assessment tools for use in nonverbal critically ill adults.

A valid pain assessment is the foundation of adequate pain management. Pain assessment can be challenging, especially in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are unable to self-report. In such situations, relying on observational assessment tools is an alternative strategy. This review describes and analyzes the development and psychometric properties of pain assessment tools developed for use with nonverbal critically ill adults. A total of 32 relevant papers that described the psychometric properties of eight pain assessment tools were included. The scale development process, psychometric properties (i.e., reliability and validity), and feasibility of pain assessment tools were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system. Each pain assessment tool was scored independently by two reviewers. Of the eight behavioral pain scales developed for use in adult ICU patients, the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are considered to be the most valid and reliable for this purpose, according to the available evidence. Behavioral pain scales may be viable alternatives to assessing pain in ICU patients who are unable to self-report, but only valid, reliable, and feasible scales should be used for this purpose.

Physician reimbursement for critical care services integrating palliative care for patients who are critically ill.

Patients with advanced illness often spend time in an ICU, while nearly one-third of patients with advanced cancer who receive Medicare die in hospitals, often with failed ICU care. For most, death occurs following the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatments. The integration of palliative care is essential for high-quality critical care. Although palliative care specialists are becoming increasingly available, intensivists and other physicians are also expected to provide basic palliative care, including symptom treatment and communication about goals of care. Patients who are critically ill are often unable to make decisions about their care. In these situations, physicians must meet with family members or other surrogates to determine appropriate medical treatments. These meetings require clinical expertise to ensure that patient values are explored for medical decision making about therapeutic options, including palliative care. Meetings with families take time. Issues related to the disease process, prognosis, and treatment plan are complex, and decisions about the use or limitation of intensive care therapies have life-or-death implications. Inadequate reimbursement for physician services may be a barrier to the optimal delivery of high-quality palliative care, including effective communication. Appropriate documentation of time spent integrating palliative and critical care for patients who are critically ill can be consistent with the Current Procedural Terminology codes (99291 and 99292) for critical care services. The purpose of this article is to help intensivists and other providers understand the circumstances in which integration of palliative and critical care meets the definition of critical care services for billing purposes.

Symptom experiences of family members of intensive care unit patients at high risk for dying.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the symptom experiences of family members of patients at high risk for dying in the intensive care unit and to assess risk factors associated with higher symptom burden. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Three intensive care units at a large academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 74 family members of 74 intensive care unit patients who had a grave prognosis and were judged to be at high risk for dying. Patients at high risk for dying were identified as having Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >20, an intensive care unit length of stay >72 hrs, and being mechanically ventilated. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We assessed the degree of symptom burden approximately 4 days after the patient's admission to the intensive care unit in the following domains: traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression. Overall, the prevalence of symptoms was high, with more than half (57%) of family members having moderate to severe levels of traumatic stress, 80% having borderline symptoms of anxiety, and 70% having borderline symptoms of depression. More than 80% of family members had other physical and emotional symptoms, such as fatigue, sadness, and fear, and these were experienced at the moderate to severe levels of distress. Factors independently associated with greater severity of symptoms included younger age, female gender, and non-white race of the family member. The only patient factor significantly associated with symptom severity was younger age. Despite their symptom experience, the majority of the family members were coping at moderate to high levels and functioning at high levels during the intensive care unit experience. CONCLUSIONS: We document a high prevalence of psychological and physical symptoms among family members during an intensive care unit admission. These data complement existing data on long-term symptom burden and highlight the need to improve family centered care in intensive care units.

Use of a pain assessment and intervention notation (P.A.I.N.) tool in critical care nursing practice: nurses' evaluations.

BACKGROUND: One of the barriers to effective pain management in critical care is the lack of systematic, comprehensive methods for assessing and treating pain. Use of a printed, standardized pain assessment and intervention tool can stimulate critical thinking and provide a framework for organizing pain assessment and management data. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to do the following: (1) describe the Pain Assessment and Intervention Notation (P.A.I.N.) tool, (2) detail critical care nurse participants' evaluations of the P.A.I.N. intervention tool when used during care of postoperative patients in pain, and (3) evaluate the tool's usefulness in practice and education. METHODS: Eleven intensive care unit (n = 7) and postanesthesia care unit (n = 4) nurses completed a questionnaire after they had used the pain tool in their clinical practices with 31 postoperative patients. RESULTS: Ten of the 11 nurses who returned an evaluation questionnaire found that the P.A.I.N. tool provided a consistent, systematic method of quantifying their assessment of patient pain and analgesic responsiveness. Five nurse participants believed that the P.A.I.N. tool improved their practice with regard to pain and sedation assessment. Three of the 11 nurses believed that the usefulness of the tool was limited because it was too detailed to be used routinely when caring for critically ill patients. All but 1 of the 11 nurses believed that the tool would have helped them earlier in their practice (ie, when they had less critical care nursing experience). CONCLUSIONS: The assessment and treatment of pain in critically ill patients are highly complex processes. This study identified many advantages of the use of a standardized, systematic approach to pain assessment and treatment by health professionals.