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
. 2022 Aug 12:3:960216.
doi: 10.3389/fpain.2022.960216. eCollection 2022.

A prospective comparison between multidisciplinary healthcare providers' clinical examination and a validated pain scale

Affiliations

A prospective comparison between multidisciplinary healthcare providers' clinical examination and a validated pain scale

Rodrigo C Menezes et al. Front Pain Res (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Introduction: Unrecognized pain in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), due to inadequate assessment and therapeutic management, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of validated pain monitoring tools, such as the Critical-Care Pain Observational Tool (CPOT), these scales are not commonly used in clinical practice, with healthcare professionals often relying on their clinical impression. Our study aims to determine the agreement between the pain examination performed by ICU professionals and the CPOT.

Methods: Prospective cohort study that included critically ill patients and physicians, nurses and physiotherapists from an ICU in Bahia, Brazil. During bedside clinical rounds, the CPOT score was applied to assess the pain of hospitalized patients, and health professionals were interviewed to ascertain their perception of the patient's pain for a maximum of five consecutive days. Correlations were assessed using the Spearman rank tests. Hierarchical cluster analysis was employed to show the results of CPOT score and pain assessment by healthcare professionals at each study time. And the Kappa statistic was calculated to assess the agreement between the CPOT score vs. the pain assessment by healthcare providers.

Results: One hundred one patients were included in the study with median age of 74 years (IQR 61.5-83.5), a predominance of women (55.4%) and a median SAPS 3 score of 45 (IQR 39.5-53.0). The correlation between the professional's pain assessment and the CPOT were mostly statistically significant, ranged from negligible to weak, being the highest index obtained in the evaluation of nurses on day 5 (Kappa index = 0.43, p = 0.005). Physician assessments were significant only in day 1. On the presence of pain, the professionals' assessments and CPOT revealed mild to a moderate agreement.

Conclusion: Healthcare professional's pain assessment displayed a weak positive correlation with a validated pain scale and poor agreement amongst members of the ICU team, particularly when the pain was felt to be absent. Thus, this study highlights the importance of routine tools for pain assessment in the ICU for all members of multidisciplinary teams.

Keywords: Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool; critical care; pain; pain examination; pain management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study. (A) Distribution of healthcare professionals and (B) patient enrollment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pain assessment profile by nurses, physicians and physiotherapists and results of CPOT score in ICU patients stratified by analgesics treatment and medical procedures. The kappa coefficient of agreement between the CPOT score and pain assessment by nurses, physicians, and physiotherapists on day 1 (A), day 2 (B), day 3 (C), day 4 (D), and day 5 (E). Statistically significant agreements are highlighted in orange. CPOT, Critical care pain observation tool; VAS, Visual analog scale for pain.

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® registered study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. (2014) 189:39–47. 10.1164/rccm.201306-1174OC - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chanques G, Sebbane M, Barbotte E, Viel E, Eledjam J-J, Jaber S. A prospective study of pain at rest: incidence and characteristics of an unrecognized symptom in surgical and trauma versus medical intensive care unit patients. Anesthesiology. (2007) 107:858–60. 10.1097/01.anes.0000287211.98642.51 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Georgiou E, Hadjibalassi M, Lambrinou E, Andreou P, Papathanassoglou EDE. The impact of pain assessment on critically ill patients' outcomes: a systematic review. BioMed Res Int. (2015) 2015:503830. 10.1155/2015/503830 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Puntillo KA, Naidu R. Chronic pain disorders after critical illness and ICU-acquired opioid dependence: two clinical conundra. Curr Opin Crit Care. (2016) 22:506–12. 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000343 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Devine H, Quasim T, McPeake J, Shaw M, McCallum L, Mactavish P. Chronic pain in intensive care unit survivors: incidence, characteristics and side-effects up to one-year post-discharge. J Rehabil Med. (2019) 51:451–5. 10.2340/16501977-2558 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources