29.01.2015 Views

Further assessment of a behavioural pain scale or Dolousi Pain ...

Further assessment of a behavioural pain scale or Dolousi Pain ...

Further assessment of a behavioural pain scale or Dolousi Pain ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Further</strong> Assessment<br />

<strong>of</strong><br />

a Behavioural <strong>Pain</strong> Scale<br />

<strong>or</strong><br />

DOLOUSI <strong>Pain</strong> Scale<br />

f<strong>or</strong> patients who are unable to communicate<br />

M. De Val Intensive Care Unit Charleroi BELGIUM


In ICU<br />

Adequate <strong>assessment</strong> and management <strong>of</strong> <strong>pain</strong><br />

are <strong>of</strong> particular imp<strong>or</strong>tance.<br />

The recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>pain</strong> is a medical and ethical<br />

challenge f<strong>or</strong> every physician and nurse<br />

In particular, the evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>pain</strong> in patients who<br />

cannot communicate, and m<strong>or</strong>e specifically :<br />

sedated and ventilated patients.


• Postoperative <strong>pain</strong> is well know<br />

f<strong>or</strong> communicating patients.(1)<br />

• Non Communicating Patients<br />

(NCP) ,intubated and ventilated<br />

f<strong>or</strong>m a special group.(2)<br />

• Few <strong>scale</strong>s devoted to critically ill<br />

NCP staying in an ICU<br />

(1) BARDIAU F. Contribution à l’élab<strong>or</strong>ation d’un programme d’améli<strong>or</strong>ation continue de la qualité de la<br />

prise en charge de la douleur postopératoire. Thèse de doct<strong>or</strong>at en santé publique. ULB 1999-2000<br />

(2) Sedation in the mechanically ventilated patient. Critical Care Med. – Volume 34, n° 10


2000<br />

LAGRASTA (3)<br />

2001<br />

PAYEN et al. (4)<br />

2005<br />

AISSAOUI (5)<br />

• Elab<strong>or</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> a behavi<strong>or</strong>al <strong>pain</strong> <strong>scale</strong><br />

f<strong>or</strong> Non Communicating Patients (NCP)<br />

• Improvement <strong>of</strong> Lagrasta’s <strong>scale</strong><br />

• Validation <strong>of</strong> Payen’s <strong>scale</strong><br />

(3) LAGRASTA A. , DESCHAUX I. Enseignement supérieur en soins infirmiers adultes et pédiatriques 2000,<br />

Elsevier : pp 66-72<br />

(4) PAYEN JF et al. Critical Care Med. 2001: 29 : 225-263<br />

(5) ASSAOUI Y et al. Anesth. Anal 2005: 101 : pp1470-176


2005<br />

DE VAL et al.<br />

• Elab<strong>or</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Dolousi</strong> <strong>Pain</strong> Scale (DPS)<br />

based on behavi<strong>or</strong>al <strong>pain</strong> <strong>scale</strong>s such as<br />

FLACC (6) , CHEOPS (7) and Doloplus 2 (8 )…<br />

2010<br />

SCHNAKERS C. et al. (9)<br />

• Elab<strong>or</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> Nociception Coma Scale<br />

(NCS) to detect <strong>pain</strong> in minimally<br />

conscious and vegetative patients<br />

(6) MERKEL et al. The FLACC (Face, Legs, Cry, Consolability) . Pediatric Nursing 1997: 23 : pp 293-297<br />

(7) Mc GRATH et al. CHEOPS (Children’s Hospital <strong>of</strong> Eastern Ontario <strong>Pain</strong> Scale) : a behavi<strong>or</strong>al <strong>scale</strong> f<strong>or</strong><br />

rating postoperative <strong>pain</strong> in children. Advances in <strong>Pain</strong> Research and Therapy. 1985 , vol 9 : pp 395-402<br />

(8) Doloplus 2 BMC Geriatrics 2007, 7 :29 doi : 10.1186/1471-2318-7-29. A valid tool f<strong>or</strong> behavi<strong>or</strong>al <strong>pain</strong> <strong>assessment</strong><br />

(9) SCHNAKERS C. et al. <strong>Pain</strong> 2010 : 148(2) : pp215-219


- Elab<strong>or</strong>ated and used in our ICU since 2005<br />

- A behavi<strong>or</strong>al, one-dimensional <strong>scale</strong> based upon hetero-evaluations <strong>of</strong> 4<br />

items:<br />

Adaptation to<br />

ventilation<br />

1 Compliant to ventilation settings<br />

2 Occasional cough, triggers ventilat<strong>or</strong><br />

3 In conflict with ventilat<strong>or</strong>, coughing, ventilat<strong>or</strong> overpressures<br />

4 Incompatible with controlled ventilation<br />

Facial expression<br />

1 Relaxed<br />

2 Mild tension <strong>or</strong> occasional grimaces (frown, pursing lips, trembling chin)<br />

3 Severe tension on the face, frequent, persistent and marked grimacing<br />

4 Permanently strained and exhausted expression


Motricity<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

Quiet, relaxed, comf<strong>or</strong>table<br />

No defensive movements during nursing and investigations<br />

Restless, intentional moving without strength <strong>or</strong> aggression, easily calmed<br />

by verbal <strong>or</strong> tactile mediation<br />

Agitated: frequent uncontrolled movements intended to escape nursing and<br />

investigations; requiring bonds<br />

Severely agitated: brutal flexion and stiff crispation <strong>of</strong> extremities to escape<br />

nursing, fists clenched, pulls out catheters and bites tube<br />

5<br />

Combative: violent retractions, stiff defensive movements immediately<br />

dangerous f<strong>or</strong> the environment and f<strong>or</strong> himself, risks falling out <strong>of</strong> bed<br />

Tears<br />

1 No tears<br />

2 Presence <strong>of</strong> tears<br />

Minimum sc<strong>or</strong>e: 4 – Maximum sc<strong>or</strong>e: 15


Prospective study:<br />

110 consecutive Non Communicating Patients<br />

Inclusion criteria<br />

- intubated and mechanically ventilated f<strong>or</strong> at least<br />

24 h.<br />

- GCS ≤ 10 (E4, M5, V1)<br />

- Ramsay ≥ 4 f<strong>or</strong> sedated patients<br />

Exclusion criteria<br />

- quadriplegic<br />

- neuromuscular blocking <strong>or</strong> barbiturate coma<br />

- Guillain Barré <strong>or</strong> peripheral neuropathies<br />

- < 15 years old


196 observations <strong>of</strong> 24 hours each<br />

3 evaluations at rest<br />

1 evaluation during eye<br />

care<br />

1 evaluation during<br />

complete toilet with lateral<br />

decubitus shifting<br />

588 evaluations non <strong>pain</strong>ful<br />

stimulus<br />

196 evaluations with slightly<br />

<strong>pain</strong>ful stimulus<br />

196 evaluations with m<strong>or</strong>e<br />

<strong>pain</strong>ful stimulus<br />

Statistical analysis were perf<strong>or</strong>med with Wilcoxon <strong>or</strong> Friedman tests f<strong>or</strong> non parametric data :<br />

a P value < 0,001 is accepted as significant.<br />

The Cronbach coefficient was also evaluated :<br />

0 0.5 : insufficient values ; 0.5 0.7 : acceptable values ; 0.70 0.99 : significant values


F<strong>or</strong> each observation <strong>of</strong> 24 hours, several parameters<br />

were also rec<strong>or</strong>ded<br />

‣ Medication: dose <strong>of</strong> sedatives and/<strong>or</strong> analgesics.<br />

‣ GCS sc<strong>or</strong>e<br />

‣ Ramsay sc<strong>or</strong>e<br />

‣ <strong>Dolousi</strong> (DPS) sc<strong>or</strong>e<br />

All medical and nursing staff received training in these observations<br />

Each <strong>assessment</strong> was perf<strong>or</strong>med by nurses belonging to the n<strong>or</strong>mal<br />

daily nursing staff<br />

The study protocol was approved by the ethical committee <strong>of</strong> the<br />

CHU Charleroi.(Belgium)


N = 196 observations <strong>of</strong> 24 hours each<br />

DPS : SCORE = 4<br />

DPS : SCORE ≥5<br />

100%<br />

90%<br />

80%<br />

70%<br />

60%<br />

50%<br />

40%<br />

30%<br />

20%<br />

10%<br />

0%<br />

51,17%<br />

48,83%<br />

81,12% 87,23%<br />

18,88% 12,76%<br />

At rest Eye Care Complete toilet<br />

Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test<br />

P < O,OO1<br />

P < O,OO1<br />

P < O,OO1


N = 196 observations <strong>of</strong> 24 hours each


45 Non Communicating Patients (NCP)<br />

Intubated ventilated f<strong>or</strong> at least 24 hours<br />

With <strong>or</strong> without analgo-sedation<br />

- at rest<br />

DPS sc<strong>or</strong>e<br />

- during a pressure on the thumbnail during 5 seconds<br />

two independent examiners<br />

Same inclusion and exclusion criteria


Examiner 1 Examiner 2<br />

n = 45<br />

Sc<strong>or</strong>e = 4 Sc<strong>or</strong>e ≥ 5<br />

Sc<strong>or</strong>e = 4 Sc<strong>or</strong>e ≥ 5<br />

100%<br />

100%<br />

90%<br />

90%<br />

80%<br />

70%<br />

65,72%<br />

80%<br />

70%<br />

68,57%<br />

60%<br />

50%<br />

100%<br />

60%<br />

50%<br />

100%<br />

40%<br />

40%<br />

30%<br />

20%<br />

34,28%<br />

30%<br />

20%<br />

31,43%<br />

10%<br />

10%<br />

0%<br />

Without<br />

nociception<br />

Nociception<br />

0%<br />

Without<br />

nociception<br />

Nociception<br />

P < O,OO1<br />

Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test<br />

P < O,OO1


16<br />

14<br />

12<br />

Boîtes à Moustaches de plusieurs v ariables<br />

Feuille de données4 2v *35c<br />

Médiane; Boîte: 25%-75%; Moustaches: Etendue h<strong>or</strong>satypiques<br />

Box-plots <strong>of</strong> several variables<br />

Médiane<br />

25%-75%<br />

Etendue h<strong>or</strong>s-atypiques<br />

Points atypiques<br />

Extrêmes<br />

14<br />

12<br />

10<br />

Histogramme de plusieurs v ariables<br />

Feuille de données4 2v *35c<br />

Var1 = 35*1*n<strong>or</strong>mal(x; 5,2; 1,2078)<br />

Var2 = 35*1*n<strong>or</strong>mal(x; 9,5714; 2,1867)<br />

Histogram <strong>of</strong> several variables<br />

10<br />

8<br />

medians<br />

Nbre d'obs.<br />

8<br />

6<br />

6<br />

4<br />

4<br />

2<br />

2<br />

Var1<br />

Var2<br />

0<br />

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14<br />

Var1<br />

Var2<br />

Significantly different sc<strong>or</strong>es between the two situations<br />

– at rest / nociception<br />

Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test : p < 0,001


Nbre d'obs.<br />

Feuille de données9 2v*35c<br />

Var1 = 35*1*n<strong>or</strong>mal(x; 5,2; 1,2078)<br />

Var2 = 35*1*n<strong>or</strong>mal(x; 5,2286; 1,2623)<br />

Curves <strong>of</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> several variables<br />

14<br />

12<br />

10<br />

8<br />

6<br />

4<br />

Médiane Médiane • 2525%-75% % - % Min-Max Min - Max<br />

11<br />

10<br />

9<br />

8<br />

7<br />

6<br />

5<br />

2<br />

0<br />

4 5 6 7 8 9 10<br />

Coefficients <strong>of</strong> C<strong>or</strong>relations <strong>of</strong> ranks <strong>of</strong> Spearman = 0,949063<br />

Significant c<strong>or</strong>relations marked in p


8<br />

Feuille de données7 2v*35c<br />

Var1 = 35*1*n<strong>or</strong>mal(x; 9,5714; 2,1867)<br />

Var2 = 35*1*n<strong>or</strong>mal(x; 9,9143; 2,1195)<br />

Boîtes à Moustaches de plusieurs variables<br />

Feuille de données7 2v*35c<br />

Médiane; Boîte: 20%-80%; Moustaches: 1%-99%<br />

Curves <strong>of</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> several variables Médiane • 25 % - 75 % Min -<br />

15<br />

Max<br />

Nbre d'obs.<br />

7<br />

6<br />

5<br />

4<br />

3<br />

2<br />

14<br />

13<br />

12<br />

11<br />

10<br />

9<br />

8<br />

7<br />

1<br />

0<br />

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14<br />

Var1<br />

Var2<br />

6<br />

5<br />

Var1<br />

Var2<br />

Médiane<br />

20%-80%<br />

1%-99%<br />

Coefficients <strong>of</strong> C<strong>or</strong>relations <strong>of</strong> ranks <strong>of</strong> Spearman = 0,899677<br />

Significant c<strong>or</strong>relations marked in p


The DPS yielded a Cronbach alpha that varied<br />

between<br />

0,739565 to 0,729985<br />

acc<strong>or</strong>ding to the situation<br />

this fulfils the criterion <strong>of</strong> significant<br />

internal consistency<br />

Cronbach alpha : 0,70 – 0,99 = significant values


accurate<br />

<strong>Dolousi</strong> <strong>Pain</strong> Scale<br />

Easy to use<br />

Good inter-rater reliability<br />

Good internal consistency<br />

Threshold 7 <br />

Imp<strong>or</strong>tance <strong>of</strong> adequate tools to evaluate <strong>pain</strong> by the nursing staff<br />

Quality<br />

Safety<br />

Patients


From 2004 to 2005<br />

@ : marie-daniele.deval@chu-charleroi.be ; marie.deval@skynet.be<br />

1 st pretest 4 patients 24 evaluations 4 specific observations<br />

2 nd pretest 11 patients 74 evaluations 11 specific observations<br />

1 st study 24 patients 117 at rest evaluations<br />

39 eye care evaluations<br />

39 shifting evaluations<br />

From 2006 to March 2008<br />

39 Observations <strong>of</strong> 24 hours<br />

2 nd study 110 patients 588 at rest evaluations<br />

196 eye care evaluations<br />

196 shifting evaluations<br />

196 observations <strong>of</strong> 24 hours<br />

From April 2009 to April 2010 - 2 periods <strong>of</strong> 4 months each - 2 examiners in the same time<br />

3 rd study 45 patients 90 at rest evaluations<br />

90 Nociception evaluations<br />

45 specific observations<br />

194 patients 1453 evaluations<br />

at rest<br />

Eye care<br />

shifting<br />

nociception<br />

295 observations

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!