4 resultados para Evaluation tool
em Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Despite the development of novel typing methods based on whole genome sequencing, most laboratories still rely on classical molecular methods for outbreak investigation or surveillance. Reference methods for Clostridium difficile include ribotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, which are band-comparing methods often difficult to establish and which require reference strain collections. Here, we present the double locus sequence typing (DLST) scheme as a tool to analyse C. difficile isolates. Using a collection of clinical C. difficile isolates recovered during a 1-year period, we evaluated the performance of DLST and compared the results to multilocus sequence typing (MLST), a sequence-based method that has been used to study the structure of bacterial populations and highlight major clones. DLST had a higher discriminatory power compared to MLST (Simpson's index of diversity of 0.979 versus 0.965) and successfully identified all isolates of the study (100 % typeability). Previous studies showed that the discriminatory power of ribotyping was comparable to that of MLST; thus, DLST might be more discriminatory than ribotyping. DLST is easy to establish and provides several advantages, including absence of DNA extraction [polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is performed on colonies], no specific instrumentation, low cost and unambiguous definition of types. Moreover, the implementation of a DLST typing scheme on an Internet database, such as that previously done for Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ( http://www.dlst.org ), will allow users to easily obtain the DLST type by submitting directly sequencing files and will avoid problems associated with multiple databases.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: Attaining an accurate diagnosis in the acute phase for severely brain-damaged patients presenting Disorders of Consciousness (DOC) is crucial for prognostic validity; such a diagnosis determines further medical management, in terms of therapeutic choices and end-of-life decisions. However, DOC evaluation based on validated scales, such as the Revised Coma Recovery Scale (CRS-R), can lead to an underestimation of consciousness and to frequent misdiagnoses particularly in cases of cognitive motor dissociation due to other aetiologies. The purpose of this study is to determine the clinical signs that lead to a more accurate consciousness assessment allowing more reliable outcome prediction. METHODS: From the Unit of Acute Neurorehabilitation (University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland) between 2011 and 2014, we enrolled 33 DOC patients with a DOC diagnosis according to the CRS-R that had been established within 28 days of brain damage. The first CRS-R assessment established the initial diagnosis of Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome (UWS) in 20 patients and a Minimally Consciousness State (MCS) in the remaining13 patients. We clinically evaluated the patients over time using the CRS-R scale and concurrently from the beginning with complementary clinical items of a new observational Motor Behaviour Tool (MBT). Primary endpoint was outcome at unit discharge distinguishing two main classes of patients (DOC patients having emerged from DOC and those remaining in DOC) and 6 subclasses detailing the outcome of UWS and MCS patients, respectively. Based on CRS-R and MBT scores assessed separately and jointly, statistical testing was performed in the acute phase using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test; longitudinal CRS-R data were modelled with a Generalized Linear Model. RESULTS: Fifty-five per cent of the UWS patients and 77% of the MCS patients had emerged from DOC. First, statistical prediction of the first CRS-R scores did not permit outcome differentiation between classes; longitudinal regression modelling of the CRS-R data identified distinct outcome evolution, but not earlier than 19 days. Second, the MBT yielded a significant outcome predictability in the acute phase (p<0.02, sensitivity>0.81). Third, a statistical comparison of the CRS-R subscales weighted by MBT became significantly predictive for DOC outcome (p<0.02). DISCUSSION: The association of MBT and CRS-R scoring improves significantly the evaluation of consciousness and the predictability of outcome in the acute phase. Subtle motor behaviour assessment provides accurate insight into the amount and the content of consciousness even in the case of cognitive motor dissociation.