Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb 7;17(1):29.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1101-5.

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA

Karine Baumstarck  1 , Mohamed Boucekine  2 , Philippe Estagnasie  3 , Marie-Agnès Geantot  4 , Audrey Berric  5 , Georges Simon  6 , Bernard Floccard  7 , Thomas Signouret  8 , Mélanie Fromentin  9 , Martine Nyunga  10 , Achille Sossou  11 , Marion Venot  12 , René Robert  13 , Arnaud Follin  14 , Juliette Audibert  15 , Anne Renault  16 , Maïté Garrouste-Orgeas  17 , Olivier Collange  18 , Quentin Levrat  19 , Isabelle Villard  20 , Didier Thevenin  21 , Julien Pottecher  22 , René-Gilles Patrigeon  23 , Nathalie Revel  24 , Coralie Vigne  25 , Elie Azoulay  12 , Olivier Mimoz  13 , Pascal Auquier  2 , Pierre Kalfon  15 ; IPREA Study group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA

Karine Baumstarck et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. .

Abstract

Background and aims: We reported the validation of the 18-item version of the 'Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation (IPREA)' questionnaire that includes 2 new items exploring feeling depressed and shortness of breath during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

Methods: The validation process was integrated in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, two-parallel group study built to assess the effectiveness of a tailored multicomponent program for reducing self-perceived discomfort in the ICU. All patients aged 18 years or older who survived an ICU stay of 3 calendar days or more were eligible for inclusion. Data collection included demographics (sex, age), type of admission (medical and surgical), health status scores at admission (Knaus score and McCabe index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II), specific ICU therapeutics such as mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), use of vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU stay duration.

Results: A total of 994 patients were included. The initial structure of IPREA was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis showing satisfactory fit (RMSEA at 0.042, CFI at 0.912). No multidimensional structure was identified, allowing the calculation of an overall discomfort score. The three highest discomforts were sleep deprivation, thirst, and perfusion lines and other devices, and the 3 lowest discomforts were limited visiting hours, hunger, and isolation. The overall discomfort score of the 18-item version of IPREA did not differ between men and women. Higher age was significantly correlated with a lower overall discomfort score. While MV was not linked to self-reported discomfort, patients treated by NIV reported higher overall discomfort scores than patients not treated by NIV.

Conclusion: The 18-item version of IPREA is easy to use and possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. The availability of a reliable and valid French questionnaire asking about patients' self-perceived ICU discomforts enables feedback from the health care team to be incorporated in a continuous quality health care improvement strategy.

Trial registration: clinicaltrial.gov NCT02442934 (registration date: May 18, 2015, retrospectively registered).

Keywords: Critical care; Discomfort; IPREA; Questionnaire; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Regulatory monitoring has been performed in accordance with the French law needing the approval of the French ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Tours Région Centre-Ouest 1, 28/08/2013, reference number 2013-S10). All records and subjects’ identity remained confidential in accordance with the French regulations: the French National Committee of Informatics and Liberties (Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés, 20/03/2014, reference number DR-2014-097) and the French Consultative Committee for the data processing in health research (Comité consultatif sur le traitement de l’information en matière de recherche dans le domaine de la santé, 12/12/2013, reference number 13.642bis). Consent has been obtained from each participant.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Dr. Kalfon received consulting fees from Philips Healthcare. On behalf of all remaining authors, the corresponding author states that the remaining authors have no conflict of interest. The other authors have stated that they had no interests which might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Confirmatory factor analysis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Puntillo KA, Max A, Timsit JF, Vignoud L, Chanques G, Robleda G, et al. Determinants of procedural pain intensity in the intensive care unit. The Europain(R) study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:39–47. - PubMed
    1. Novaes MA, Aronovich A, Ferraz MB, Knobel E. Stressors in ICU: patients' evaluation. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:1282–1285. doi: 10.1007/s001340050500. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nelson JE, Meier DE, Oei EJ, Nierman DM, Senzel RS, Manfredi PL, et al. Self-reported symptom experience of critically ill cancer patients receiving intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:277–282. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200102000-00010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kalfon P, Mimoz O, Auquier P, Loundou A, Gauzit R, Lepape A, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire for quantitative assessment of perceived discomforts in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:1751–1758. doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1902-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K. The Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care. 1991;7:6–9. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

Grants and funding