Use of an accelerated chest pain assessment protocol in patients at intermediate risk of adverse cardiac events

Objective: To determine the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of a structured clinical pathway for stratification and management of patients presenting with chest pain and classified as having intermediate risk of adverse cardiac outcomes in the subsequent six months. Design: Prospective clinical audit. Participants and setting: 630 consecutive patients who presented to the emergency department of a metropolitan tertiary care hospital between January 2000 and June 2001 with chest pain and intermediate-risk features. Intervention: Use of the Accelerated Chest Pain Assessment Protocol (ACPAP), as advocated by the Management of unstable angina guidelines - 2000 from the National Heart Foundation and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. Main outcome measure: Adverse cardiac events during six-month follow-up. Results: 409 patients (65%) were reclassified as low risk and discharged at a mean of 14 hours after assessment in the chest pain unit. None had missed myocardial infarctions, while three (1%) had cardiac events at six months (all elective revascularisation procedures, with no readmissions with acute coronary syndromes). Another 110 patients (17%) were reclassified as high risk, and 21 (19%) of these had cardiac events (mainly revascularisations) by six months. Patients who were unable to exercise or had non-diagnostic exercise stress test results (equivocal risk) had an intermediate cardiac event rate (8%). Conclusions: This study validates use of ACPAP. The protocol eliminated missed myocardial infarction; allowed early, safe discharge of low-risk patients; and led to early identification and management of high-risk patients.

Cultural adaptation of the scale Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia – PAINAD to Brazil

Objective: To translate and culturally adapt to Brazil the scale Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia(PAINAD).Method: The cultural adaptation process followed the methodology of a theorical reference, in five steps: translation to Brazilian Portuguese, consensual version of translations, back-translation to the original language, revision by a committee of specialists in the field and a equivalency pre-test. The instrument was assessed and applied by 27 health professionals in the last step. Results: The Escala de Avaliação de Dor em Demência Avançada was culturally adapted to Brazil and presented semantic equivalency to the original, besides clarity, applicability and easy comprehension of the instrument items. Conclusion: This process secured the psychometric properties as the reliability and content validity of the referred scale.


Pain assessment in PICU and NICU: Have we got it right?

Pain assessment in critically ill infants and nonverbal children remains a challenge for health professionals. Despite the numerous pain observational measures that have been developed or adapted for infants and children with impaired communication, pain prevalence in paediatric and neonatal intensive care unit remains too high. As pain assessment has been recognised as a pre-requisite for appropriate pain management, much effort was put in the validation or the adaptation of pain measures with little emphasis on implementation of these instruments into practice. Only a few studies demonstrated the benefit of using standardised protocols for the management of pain to guide practice with variable effects. When standardised protocols are undeniably useful in practice, they do not replace health professionals' clinical reasoning necessary to care for individuals. The diversity of the PICU population makes that pain scores need to be interpreted within its clinical context. This session will present pain assessment as a complex transaction that describes structured clinical reasoning from expert nurses that goes beyond the "silver" standard of hetero-evaluation of pain in non-communicative children. Besides pain scores, several patients and nurses factors play a major role in making decisions about analgesia and/or sedation. Patient's clinical instability, change in patient's clinical status, source for observed agitated behaviour, patient's known reactions to analgesia and sedation and anticipation of risks are factors that should be taken into account when implementing pain assessment and management guidelines in PICU and NICU.

Expert clinical reasoning and pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients: A descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients is challenging, because nurses need to decode pain behaviour, interpret pain scores, and make appropriate decisions. This clinical reasoning process is inherent to advanced nursing practice, but is poorly understood. A better understanding of this process could contribute to improved pain assessment and management. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the indicators that influence expert nurses' clinical reasoning when assessing pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. METHODS: This descriptive observational study was conducted in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary referral hospital in Western Switzerland. A purposive sample of expert nurses, caring for nonverbal ventilated patients who received sedation and analgesia, were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected in "real life" using recorded think-aloud combined with direct non-participant observation and brief interviews. Data were analysed using deductive and inductive content analyses using a theoretical framework related to clinical reasoning and pain. RESULTS: Seven expert nurses with an average of 7.85 (±3.1) years of critical care experience participated in the study. The patients had respiratory distress (n=2), cardiac arrest (n=2), sub-arachnoid bleeding (n=1), and multi-trauma (n=2). A total of 1344 quotes in five categories were identified. Patients' physiological stability was the principal indicator for making decision in relation to pain management. Results also showed that it is a permanent challenge for nurses to discriminate situations requiring sedation from situations requiring analgesia. Expert nurses mainly used working knowledge and patterns to anticipate and prevent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patient's clinical condition is important for making decision about pain in critically ill nonverbal patients. The concept of pain cannot be assessed in isolation and its assessment should take the patient's clinical stability and sedation into account. Further research is warranted to confirm these results.

Designing a questionnaire to gather carer input to pain assessment for hospitalized people with dementia

We describe development of a questionnaire to elicit pain symptoms and experience, for use by people with dementia or their carers, at hospital admission. The questionnaire provided contextual information to support professionals’ use of the Abbey Pain Scale, a validated tool used by nursing staff internationally. Appropriate information and physical design were required in order, not only to create an approachable questionnaire for patients and carers, but also to ensure fit with hospital processes. Fit with hospital process had significant influence on the final form of the questionnaire, compromising some aspects of design for patients and carers, but this compromise was considered essential to ensure pain management procedures were supplemented by wider, contextual information.

Factor analysis of responses to thermal, electrical, and mechanical painful stimuli supports the importance of multi-modal pain assessment

During the last decade, a multi-modal approach has been established in human experimental pain research for assessing pain thresholds and responses to various experimental pain modalities. Studies have concluded that differences in responses to pain stimuli are mainly related to variation between individuals rather than variation in response to different stimulus modalities. In a factor analysis of 272 consecutive volunteers (137 men and 135 women) who underwent tests with different experimental pain modalities, it was determined whether responses to different pain modalities represent distinct individual uncorrelated dimensions of pain perception. Volunteers underwent single painful electrical stimulation, repeated painful electrical stimulation (temporal summation), test for reflex receptive field, pressure pain stimulation, heat pain stimulation, cold pain stimulation, and a cold pressor test (ice water test). Five distinct factors were found representing responses to 5 distinct experimental pain modalities: pressure, heat, cold, electrical stimulation, and reflex-receptive fields. Each of the factors explained approximately 8% to 35% of the observed variance, and the 5 factors cumulatively explained 94% of the variance. The correlation between the 5 factors was near null (median ρ=0.00, range -0.03 to 0.05), with 95% confidence intervals for pairwise correlations between 2 factors excluding any relevant correlation. Results were almost similar for analyses stratified according to gender and age. Responses to different experimental pain modalities represent different specific dimensions and should be assessed in combination in future pharmacological and clinical studies to represent the complexity of nociception and pain experience.

Clinical application and reliability of a post abdominal surgery pain assessment scale (PASPAS) in horses

The aim of this study was to refine a multi-dimensional scale based on physiological and behavioural parameters, known as the post abdominal surgery pain assessment scale (PASPAS), to quantify pain after laparotomy in horses. After a short introduction, eight observers used the scale to assess eight horses at multiple time points after laparotomy. In addition, a single observer was used to test the correlation of each parameter with the total pain index in 34 patients, and the effect of general anaesthesia on PASPAS was investigated in a control group of eight horses. Inter-observer variability was low (coefficient of variation 0.3), which indicated good reliability of PASPAS. The correlation of individual parameters with the total pain index differed between parameters. PASPAS, which was not influenced by general anaesthesia, was a useful tool to evaluate pain in horses after abdominal surgery and may also be useful to investigate analgesic protocols or for teaching purposes.

A pain assessment scale for population-based studies: Development and validation of the Pain Module of the Standard Evaluation Questionnaire

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a tool for assessing pain in population-based observational studies and to develop three subscales for back/neck, upper extremity and lower extremity pain. Based on a literature review, items were extracted from validated questionnaires and reviewed by an expert panel. The initial questionnaire consisted of a pain manikin and 34 items relating to (i) intensity of pain in different body regions (7 items), (ii) pain during activities of daily living (18 items) and (iii) various pain modalities (9 items). Psychometric validation of the initial questionnaire was performed in a random sample of the German-speaking Swiss population. Analyses included tests for reliability, correlation analysis, principal components factor analysis, tests for internal consistency and validity. Overall, 16,634 of 23,763 eligible individuals participated (70%). Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.32 to 0.97, but only three coefficients were below 0.60. Subscales were constructed combining four items for each of the subscales. Item-total coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.86 and Cronbach's alpha were 0.75 or higher for all subscales. Correlation coefficients between subscales and three validated instruments (WOMAC, SPADI and Oswestry) ranged from 0.62 to 0.79. The final Pain Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ Pain) included 28 items and the pain manikin and accounted for the multidimensionality of pain by assessing pain location and intensity, pain during activity, triggers and time of onset of pain and frequency of pain medication. It was found to be reliable and valid for the assessment of pain in population-based observational studies.

Routine procedures in NICUs: factors influencing pain assessment and ranking by pain intensity

BACKGROUND: Pain associated with routine procedures in NICUs is often inadequately managed. Barriers to more appropriate pain management are nurses' and physicians' knowledge and the challenges of collaborative decision-making. Few studies describe the differing perceptions of procedural pain intensity among nurses and physicians in NICUs which could complicate common decision-making. This study set out to explore the factors influencing pain intensity assessment and to gain insight into a possible pain intensity classification of routine procedures in the NICU. METHOD: A survey was conducted among 431 neonatal health care professionals from 4 tertiary level NICUs. Each routine procedure was assessed on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) assuming absence of analgesia. RESULTS: Multiple ANCOVA models showed that nurses rated 19 of the 27 procedures as significantly more painful than did physicians (p<0.05). We found no differences in pain assessment based on professional experience, gender or age. Of the 27 procedures listed, 70% were rated as painful and 44% were judged very painful. Ranking and classification of the pain intensity of routine procedures were drawn up. The general ranking of the median across all procedures shows that "insertion of a thoracic drain" is assessed as the most painful procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of routine procedures in an NICU are considered to be painful. Nurses generally rate procedures as more painful than do physicians. This difference in assessment deserves exploration in regard to its impact on collaborative decision-making in neonate pain management.

A new instrument for pain assessment in the immediate postoperative period

Perceptual-cognitive impairment after general anaesthesia may affect the ability to reliably report pain severity with the standard visual analog scale (VAS). To minimise these limitations, we developed 'PAULA the PAIN-METER' (PAULA): it has five coloured emoticon faces on the forefront, it is twice as long as a standard VAS scale, and patients use a slider to mark their pain experience. Forty-eight postoperative patients rated descriptive pain terms on PAULA and on a standard VAS immediately after admission and before discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit. Visual acuity was determined before both assessments. The values obtained with PAULA showed less variance than those obtained with the standard VAS, even at the first assessment, where only 23% of the patients had regained their visual acuity. Furthermore, the deviations of the absolute VAS values in individual patients for each descriptive pain term were significantly smaller with PAULA than with the standard VAS.