Comparing Pain Intensity of Two Instruments in Predicting the Outcomes of Patients Under Mechanical Ventilation Admitted to Intensive Care Units

Fatemeh Bahramnezhad, Elaheh Salamat, F. Sharifi, Mohammad Amin Valizade Hasanloie
{"title":"Comparing Pain Intensity of Two Instruments in Predicting the Outcomes of Patients Under Mechanical Ventilation Admitted to Intensive Care Units","authors":"Fatemeh Bahramnezhad, Elaheh Salamat, F. Sharifi, Mohammad Amin Valizade Hasanloie","doi":"10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_100_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a main problem in mechanically ventilated patients (MVPs) as they are not able to self-report pain, hence exposing them to the risk of inadequate pain management that leads to unfavorable consequences. This research aimed to determine and compare pain intensity scores of two scales in predicting the hospitalization consequences of MVPs in ICUs. The analytical-longitudinal study was carried out in ICUs in 2020. Pain intensity was evaluated using observational pain scales in 60 patients who met inclusion criteria in three positions during suctioning once daily for 3 days. There were significant inverse correlations between the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical Care Pain Observational Tool (CPOT) with the duration of hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. No significant relationships were observed between total mean scores obtained from the scales and the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. There were no significant correlations between BPS and CPOT with frequencies and total dose of the prescribed opioid drug. The use of BPS and CPOT can be used for pain assessment and control in MVPs as a positive step towards improving their consequences.","PeriodicalId":32328,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Pain","volume":"2013 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_100_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a main problem in mechanically ventilated patients (MVPs) as they are not able to self-report pain, hence exposing them to the risk of inadequate pain management that leads to unfavorable consequences. This research aimed to determine and compare pain intensity scores of two scales in predicting the hospitalization consequences of MVPs in ICUs. The analytical-longitudinal study was carried out in ICUs in 2020. Pain intensity was evaluated using observational pain scales in 60 patients who met inclusion criteria in three positions during suctioning once daily for 3 days. There were significant inverse correlations between the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical Care Pain Observational Tool (CPOT) with the duration of hospitalization and mechanical ventilation. No significant relationships were observed between total mean scores obtained from the scales and the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. There were no significant correlations between BPS and CPOT with frequencies and total dose of the prescribed opioid drug. The use of BPS and CPOT can be used for pain assessment and control in MVPs as a positive step towards improving their consequences.
比较两种工具在预测重症监护病房机械通气患者预后时的疼痛强度
重症监护室(ICU)中的疼痛评估是机械通气患者(MVPs)的主要问题,因为他们无法自我报告疼痛,从而面临疼痛管理不当的风险,导致不良后果。本研究旨在确定和比较两种量表的疼痛强度评分,以预测重症监护病房中 MVP 的住院后果。 这项分析性纵向研究于 2020 年在重症监护室进行。使用疼痛观察量表对符合纳入标准的 60 名患者进行了疼痛强度评估,评估采用三种体位,每天一次,持续 3 天。 行为疼痛量表(BPS)和重症疼痛观察工具(CPOT)与住院时间和机械通气时间呈明显的反向相关。从量表中获得的总平均分与呼吸机相关肺炎的发生率之间没有发现明显的关系。BPS和CPOT与处方阿片类药物的频率和总剂量无明显相关性。 BPS 和 CPOT 可用于 MVP 患者的疼痛评估和控制,为改善其后果迈出了积极的一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信