2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/157013
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Pain Assessment in Non-Verbal Patients in Critical Care
Author(s):
Maidl, Carolyn; McAndrew, Natalie; Hanson, Andrew; Leske, Jane; Paulsonconger, Melissa; Bauknecht, Sarah; Dziadulewicz, Laurel
Author Details:
Carolyn Maidl, RN,BSN,CNRN, Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, Wisconsine, USA, email: cmaidl@wi.rr.com; Natalie McAndrew; Andrew Hanson; Jane Leske; Melissa Paulsonconger; Sarah Bauknecht; Laurel Dziadulewicz
Abstract:
POSTER PURPOSE: To validate a pain scale by using psychometric methods and specifically to compare the reliability and validity of the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) scales in critical care patients. BACKGROUND/SIGNIFICANCE:A patientÆs self-report of pain should be obtained as often as possible as the "gold standard." Yet in critical care many factors alter patients' verbal communication, making pain assessment difficult. Scientific advances in understanding pain mechanisms, multidimensional methods of pain assessment, and analgesic pharmacology have improved pain management strategies. Still, pain assessment in nonverbal patients in critical care continues to present a challenge for clinicians and researchers. METHOD: A descriptive, comparative, prospective design was used in this study. A convenience sample of 100 adult, non-verbal critical care adult patients with various diagnoses who required pain evaluation were assessed with the PAINAD and CPOT scales. Data were collected during a 6-month period in all intensive care units (ICUs) (26 from the surgical ICU, 27 from the medical ICU, 34 from the neonatal ICU, and 13 from the cardiac ICU). Observations of pain assessments for nonverbal patients who required pain evaluation were recorded on the PAINAD and the CPOT at the same time. RESULTS: Critical care patients ranged in age from 19 to 90 years (mean, 55; SD, 17). Most patients were male (n = 60, 60%). The range of PAINAD scores was from 0 to 8 (mean, 2.04; SD, 2.37). The range of CPOT scores was from 0 to 8 (mean, 1.96; SD, 2.07). Internal consistency reliability for the PAINAD was 0.80. Internal consistency reliability for the CPOT was 0.76. The correlation between the PAINAD and CPOT was 0.86 (P < .001). A Bland-Altman plot was used to examine the agreement between the 2. Mean bias between the 2 tools was 0.10 (SD, 1.22). The limits of agreement ranged from û 2.33 to 2.53, indicating adequate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that PAINAD and CPOT scores did not differ for assessing pain in nonverbal patients in critical care. However, the lower reliability of the CPOT tool requires further investigation. Further research in the area of pain assessment for nonverbal patients in critical care is needed.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
26-Oct-2011
Citation:
2010 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(3), e15-e28. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010866
Conference Date:
2010
Conference Name:
National Teaching Institute and Critical Care Exposition
Conference Host:
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses
Conference Location:
Washington, D.C., USA
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_GB
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titlePain Assessment in Non-Verbal Patients in Critical Careen_GB
dc.contributor.authorMaidl, Carolynen_GB
dc.contributor.authorMcAndrew, Natalieen_GB
dc.contributor.authorHanson, Andrewen_GB
dc.contributor.authorLeske, Janeen_GB
dc.contributor.authorPaulsonconger, Melissaen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBauknecht, Sarahen_GB
dc.contributor.authorDziadulewicz, Laurelen_GB
dc.author.detailsCarolyn Maidl, RN,BSN,CNRN, Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, Wisconsine, USA, email: cmaidl@wi.rr.com; Natalie McAndrew; Andrew Hanson; Jane Leske; Melissa Paulsonconger; Sarah Bauknecht; Laurel Dziadulewiczen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/157013-
dc.description.abstractPOSTER PURPOSE: To validate a pain scale by using psychometric methods and specifically to compare the reliability and validity of the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) scales in critical care patients. BACKGROUND/SIGNIFICANCE:A patient&AElig;s self-report of pain should be obtained as often as possible as the "gold standard." Yet in critical care many factors alter patients' verbal communication, making pain assessment difficult. Scientific advances in understanding pain mechanisms, multidimensional methods of pain assessment, and analgesic pharmacology have improved pain management strategies. Still, pain assessment in nonverbal patients in critical care continues to present a challenge for clinicians and researchers. METHOD: A descriptive, comparative, prospective design was used in this study. A convenience sample of 100 adult, non-verbal critical care adult patients with various diagnoses who required pain evaluation were assessed with the PAINAD and CPOT scales. Data were collected during a 6-month period in all intensive care units (ICUs) (26 from the surgical ICU, 27 from the medical ICU, 34 from the neonatal ICU, and 13 from the cardiac ICU). Observations of pain assessments for nonverbal patients who required pain evaluation were recorded on the PAINAD and the CPOT at the same time. RESULTS: Critical care patients ranged in age from 19 to 90 years (mean, 55; SD, 17). Most patients were male (n = 60, 60%). The range of PAINAD scores was from 0 to 8 (mean, 2.04; SD, 2.37). The range of CPOT scores was from 0 to 8 (mean, 1.96; SD, 2.07). Internal consistency reliability for the PAINAD was 0.80. Internal consistency reliability for the CPOT was 0.76. The correlation between the PAINAD and CPOT was 0.86 (P < .001). A Bland-Altman plot was used to examine the agreement between the 2. Mean bias between the 2 tools was 0.10 (SD, 1.22). The limits of agreement ranged from &ucirc; 2.33 to 2.53, indicating adequate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that PAINAD and CPOT scores did not differ for assessing pain in nonverbal patients in critical care. However, the lower reliability of the CPOT tool requires further investigation. Further research in the area of pain assessment for nonverbal patients in critical care is needed.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T19:20:38Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-26en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T19:20:38Z-
dc.identifier.citation2010 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(3), e15-e28. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010866en_GB
dc.conference.date2010en_GB
dc.conference.nameNational Teaching Institute and Critical Care Expositionen_GB
dc.conference.hostAmerican Association of Critical-Care Nursesen_GB
dc.conference.locationWashington, D.C., USAen_GB
dc.identifier.citation2010 National Teaching Institute Research Abstracts. American Journal of Critical Care, 19(3), e15-e28. doi:10.4037/ajcc2010866en_GB
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.