Person-Centred Pain Measurement in the ICU: A Multicentre Clinimetric Comparison Study of Pain Behaviour Observation Scales in Critically Ill Adult Patients with Burns.

IF 1 Q4 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Alette E E de Jong, Wim E Tuinebreijer, Helma W C Hofland, Nancy E E Van Loey
{"title":"Person-Centred Pain Measurement in the ICU: A Multicentre Clinimetric Comparison Study of Pain Behaviour Observation Scales in Critically Ill Adult Patients with Burns.","authors":"Alette E E de Jong, Wim E Tuinebreijer, Helma W C Hofland, Nancy E E Van Loey","doi":"10.3390/ebj5020018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pain in critically ill adults with burns should be assessed using structured pain behavioural observation measures. This study tested the clinimetric qualities and usability of the behaviour pain scale (BPS) and the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) in this population. This prospective observational cohort study included 132 nurses who rated pain behaviour in 75 patients. The majority of nurses indicated that BPS and CPOT reflect background and procedural pain-specific features (63-72 and 87-80%, respectively). All BPS and CPOT items loaded on one latent variable (≥0.70), except for compliance ventilator and vocalisation for CPOT (0.69 and 0.64, respectively). Internal consistency also met the criterion of ≥0.70 in ventilated and non-ventilated patients for both scales, except for non-ventilated patients observed by BPS (0.67). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of total scores were sufficient (≥0.70), but decreased when patients had facial burns. In general, the scales were fast to administer and easy to understand. Cut-off scores for BPS and CPOT were 4 and 1, respectively. In conclusion, both scales seem valid, reliable, and useful for the measurement of acute pain in ICU patients with burns, including patients with facial burns. Cut-off scores associated with BPS and CPOT for the burn population allow professionals to connect total scores to person-centred treatment protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":72961,"journal":{"name":"European burn journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"187-197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545577/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European burn journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj5020018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pain in critically ill adults with burns should be assessed using structured pain behavioural observation measures. This study tested the clinimetric qualities and usability of the behaviour pain scale (BPS) and the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) in this population. This prospective observational cohort study included 132 nurses who rated pain behaviour in 75 patients. The majority of nurses indicated that BPS and CPOT reflect background and procedural pain-specific features (63-72 and 87-80%, respectively). All BPS and CPOT items loaded on one latent variable (≥0.70), except for compliance ventilator and vocalisation for CPOT (0.69 and 0.64, respectively). Internal consistency also met the criterion of ≥0.70 in ventilated and non-ventilated patients for both scales, except for non-ventilated patients observed by BPS (0.67). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of total scores were sufficient (≥0.70), but decreased when patients had facial burns. In general, the scales were fast to administer and easy to understand. Cut-off scores for BPS and CPOT were 4 and 1, respectively. In conclusion, both scales seem valid, reliable, and useful for the measurement of acute pain in ICU patients with burns, including patients with facial burns. Cut-off scores associated with BPS and CPOT for the burn population allow professionals to connect total scores to person-centred treatment protocols.

重症监护室中以人为中心的疼痛测量:烧伤重症成人患者疼痛行为观察量表的多中心临床计量比较研究》。
成人烧伤重症患者的疼痛应采用结构化疼痛行为观察方法进行评估。本研究测试了行为疼痛量表(BPS)和危重症疼痛观察工具(CPOT)在该人群中的临床测量质量和可用性。这项前瞻性观察性队列研究包括 132 名护士,他们对 75 名患者的疼痛行为进行了评分。大多数护士表示,BPS 和 CPOT 反映了背景和手术疼痛的特异性特征(分别为 63-72% 和 87-80%)。除顺应呼吸机和发声(CPOT 分别为 0.69 和 0.64)外,所有 BPS 和 CPOT 项目都加载在一个潜在变量上(≥0.70)。除 BPS 观察到的非通气患者(0.67)外,通气和非通气患者两个量表的内部一致性也符合≥0.70 的标准。总分的类内相关系数(ICC)足够高(≥0.70),但当患者面部烧伤时,类内相关系数会降低。总的来说,这些量表操作简便,易于理解。BPS 和 CPOT 的临界值分别为 4 分和 1 分。总之,这两种量表对于测量 ICU 烧伤患者(包括面部烧伤患者)的急性疼痛似乎都是有效、可靠和有用的。与烧伤人群的 BPS 和 CPOT 相关的临界值可使专业人员将总分与以人为本的治疗方案联系起来。
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
0
×
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