Evaluation de la douleur chez les personnes cérébrolésées non-communicantes aux soins intensifs

La douleur est fréquente en milieu de soins intensifs et sa gestion est l'une des missions des infirmières. Son évaluation est une prémisse indispensable à son soulagement. Cependant lorsque le patient est incapable de signaler sa douleur, les infirmières doivent se baser sur des signes externes pour l'évaluer. Les guides de bonne pratique recommandent chez les personnes non communicantes l'usage d'un instrument validé pour la population donnée et basé sur l'observation des comportements. A l'heure actuelle, les instruments d'évaluation de la douleur disponibles ne sont que partiellement adaptés aux personnes cérébrolésées dans la mesure où ces personnes présentent des comportements qui leur sont spécifiques. C'est pourquoi, cette étude vise à identifier, décrire et valider des indicateurs, et des descripteurs, de la douleur chez les personnes cérébrolésées. Un devis d'étude mixte multiphase avec une dominante quantitative a été choisi pour cette étude. Une première phase consistait à identifier des indicateurs et des descripteurs de la douleur chez les personnes cérébrolésées non communicantes aux soins intensifs en combinant trois sources de données : une revue intégrative des écrits, une démarche consultative utilisant la technique du groupe nominal auprès de 18 cliniciens expérimentés (6 médecins et 12 infirmières) et les résultats d'une étude pilote observationnelle réalisée auprès de 10 traumatisés crâniens. Les résultats ont permis d'identifier 6 indicateurs et 47 descripteurs comportementaux, vocaux et physiologiques susceptibles d'être inclus dans un instrument d'évaluation de la douleur destiné aux personnes cérébrolésées non- communicantes aux soins intensifs. Une deuxième phase séquentielle vérifiait les propriétés psychométriques des indicateurs et des descripteurs préalablement identifiés. La validation de contenu a été testée auprès de 10 experts cliniques et 4 experts scientifiques à l'aide d'un questionnaire structuré qui cherchait à évaluer la pertinence et la clarté/compréhensibilité de chaque descripteur. Cette démarche a permis de sélectionner 33 des 47 descripteurs et valider 6 indicateurs. Dans un deuxième temps, les propriétés psychométriques de ces indicateurs et descripteurs ont été étudiés au repos, lors de stimulation non nociceptive et lors d'une stimulation nociceptive (la latéralisation du patient) auprès de 116 personnes cérébrolésées aux soins intensifs hospitalisées dans deux centres hospitaliers universitaires. Les résultats montrent d'importantes variations dans les descripteurs observés lors de stimulation nociceptive probablement dues à l'hétérogénéité des patients au niveau de leur état de conscience. Dix descripteurs ont été éliminés, car leur fréquence lors de la stimulation nociceptive était inférieure à 5% ou leur fiabilité insuffisante. Les descripteurs physiologiques ont tous été supprimés en raison de leur faible variabilité et d'une fiabilité inter juge problématique. Les résultats montrent que la validité concomitante, c'est-à-dire la corrélation entre l'auto- évaluation du patient et les mesures réalisées avec les descripteurs, est satisfaisante lors de stimulation nociceptive {rs=0,527, p=0,003, n=30). Par contre la validité convergente, qui vérifiait l'association entre l'évaluation de la douleur par l'infirmière en charge du patient et les mesures réalisés avec les descripteurs, ainsi que la validité divergente, qui vérifiait si les indicateurs discriminent entre la stimulation nociceptive et le repos, mettent en évidence des résultats variables en fonction de l'état de conscience des patients. Ces résultats soulignent la nécessité d'étudier les descripteurs de la douleur chez des patients cérébrolésés en fonction du niveau de conscience et de considérer l'hétérogénéité de cette population dans la conception d'un instrument d'évaluation de la douleur pour les personnes cérébrolésées non communicantes aux soins intensifs. - Pain is frequent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and its management is a major issue for nurses. The assessment of pain is a prerequisite for appropriate pain management. However, pain assessment is difficult when patients are unable to communicate about their experience and nurses have to base their evaluation on external signs. Clinical practice guidelines highlight the need to use behavioral scales that have been validated for nonverbal patients. Current behavioral pain tools for ICU patients unable to communicate may not be appropriate for nonverbal brain-injured ICU patients, as they demonstrate specific responses to pain. This study aimed to identify, describe and validate pain indicators and descriptors in brain-injured ICU patients. A mixed multiphase method design with a quantitative dominant was chosen for this study. The first phase aimed to identify indicators and descriptors of pain for nonverbal brain- injured ICU patients using data from three sources: an integrative literature review, a consultation using the nominal group technique with 18 experienced clinicians (12 nurses and 6 physicians) and the results of an observational pilot study with 10 traumatic brain injured patients. The results of this first phase identified 6 indicators and 47 behavioral, vocal and physiological descriptors of pain that could be included in a pain assessment tool for this population. The sequential phase two tested the psychometric properties of the list of previously identified indicators and descriptors. Content validity was tested with 10 clinical and 4 scientific experts for pertinence and comprehensibility using a structured questionnaire. This process resulted in 33 descriptors to be selected out of 47 previously identified, and six validated indicators. Then, the psychometric properties of the descriptors and indicators were tested at rest, during non nociceptive stimulation and nociceptive stimulation (turning) in a sample of 116 brain-injured ICLI patients who were hospitalized in two university centers. Results showed important variations in the descriptors observed during the nociceptive stimulation, probably due to the heterogeneity of patients' level of consciousness. Ten descriptors were excluded, as they were observed less than 5% of the time or their reliability was insufficient. All physiologic descriptors were deleted as they showed little variability and inter observer reliability was lacking. Concomitant validity, testing the association between patients' self report of pain and measures performed using the descriptors, was acceptable during nociceptive stimulation (rs=0,527, p=0,003, n=30). However, convergent validity ( testing for an association between the nurses' pain assessment and measures done with descriptors) and divergent validity (testing for the ability of the indicators to discriminate between rest and a nociceptive stimulation) varied according to the level of consciousness These results highlight the need to study pain descriptors in brain-injured patients with different level of consciousness and to take into account the heterogeneity of this population forthe conception of a pain assessment tool for nonverbal brain-injured ICU patients.

Consensus of Official Position of IOF/ISCD FRAX Initiatives in Asia-Pacific Region.

The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX(®)) has been developed for the identification of individuals with high risk of fracture in whom treatment to prevent fractures would be appropriate. FRAX models are not yet available for all countries or ethnicities, but surrogate models can be used within regions with similar fracture risk. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are nonprofit multidisciplinary international professional organizations. Their visions are to advance the awareness, education, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis. In November 2010, the IOF/ISCD FRAX initiative was held in Bucharest, bringing together international experts to review and create evidence-based official positions guiding clinicians for the practical use of FRAX. A consensus meeting of the Asia-Pacific (AP) Panel of the ISCD recently reviewed the most current Official Positions of the Joint Official Positions of ISCD and IOF on FRAX in view of the different population characteristics and health standards in the AP regions. The reviewed position statements included not only the key spectrum of positions but also unique concerns in AP regions.

Handheld-assisted field data collection for occupational risk assessment.

A computerized handheld procedure is presented in this paper. It is intended as a database complementary tool, to enhance prospective risk analysis in the field of occupational health. The Pendragon forms software (version 3.2) has been used to implement acquisition procedures on Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and to transfer data to a computer in an MS-Access format. The data acquisition strategy proposed relies on the risk assessment method practiced at the Institute of Occupational Health Sciences (IST). It involves the use of a systematic hazard list and semi-quantitative risk assessment scales. A set of 7 modular forms has been developed to cover the basic need of field audits. Despite the minor drawbacks observed, the results obtained so far show that handhelds are adequate to support field risk assessment and follow-up activities. Further improvements must still be made in order to increase the tool effectiveness and field adequacy.

Diagnostic yield of short-term video-EEG monitoring for epilepsy and PNESs: a European assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Although long-term video-EEG monitoring (LVEM) is routinely used to investigate paroxysmal events, short-term video-EEG monitoring (SVEM) lasting <24 h is increasingly recognized as a cost-effective tool. Since, however, relatively few studies addressed the yield of SVEM among different diagnostic groups, we undertook the present study to investigate this aspect. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 226 consecutive SVEM recordings over 6 years. All patients were referred because routine EEGs were inconclusive. Patients were classified into 3 suspected diagnostic groups: (1) group with epileptic seizures, (2) group with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs), and (3) group with other or undetermined diagnoses. We assessed recording lengths, interictal epileptiform discharges, epileptic seizures, PNESs, and the definitive diagnoses obtained after SVEM. RESULTS: The mean age was 34 (±18.7) years, and the median recording length was 18.6 h. Among the 226 patients, 127 referred for suspected epilepsy - 73 had a diagnosis of epilepsy, none had a diagnosis of PNESs, and 54 had other or undetermined diagnoses post-SVEM. Of the 24 patients with pre-SVEM suspected PNESs, 1 had epilepsy, 12 had PNESs, and 11 had other or undetermined diagnoses. Of the 75 patients with other diagnoses pre-SVEM, 17 had epilepsy, 11 had PNESs, and 47 had other or undetermined diagnoses. After SVEM, 15 patients had definite diagnoses other than epilepsy or PNESs, while in 96 patients, diagnosis remained unclear. Overall, a definitive diagnosis could be reached in 129/226 (57%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in nearly 3/5 patients without a definitive diagnosis after routine EEG, SVEM allowed us to reach a diagnosis. This procedure should be encouraged in this setting, given its time-effectiveness compared with LVEM.