scholarly journals Studi Kualitatif Pemahaman Perawat Intensive Care Unit tentang Pengkajian Nyeri Behaviour Pain Scale

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-118
Author(s):  
Fatimah Khoirini ◽  
Rahma Annisa

  Assessment is the initial nursing process. In the nursing assessment obtained information about patient data used as a baseline and determine the next stage. Patients in intensive rooms with ventilators often received nursing actions that cause pain. Pain assessment in patients using ventilators must use special assessment techniques. Patients with ventilators require standardized assessment methods because they cannot communicate the pain they feel verbally. Payen in 2001 developed the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS). Critical patients who are fitted with ventilators need a systematic and consistent assessment of pain. Understanding is the ability to explain correctly and in detail about something. Before performing an action properly one needs to understand the action. This study aimed to determine the experience and understanding of ICU nurses about pain assessment using BPS at M Yunus Bengkulu General Hospital. This study used the qualitative study that focus on disclosing nurses' understanding of pain assessment using BPS. Themes that emerged in this study were 1. use BPS, 2. Three items in the BPS assessment, 3. Indicators assessing pain, 4. Maximum minimum scoring, 5. Range of pain values. Nurse’s understanding about BPS was very necessary.

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laudice Santos Oliveira ◽  
Maiara Pimentel Macedo ◽  
Stefany Ariadley Martins da Silva ◽  
Ana Paula de Freitas Oliveira ◽  
Victor Santana Santos

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zainab Q. Al Darwish ◽  
Radwa Hamdi ◽  
Summayah Fallatah

Pain assessment poses a great challenge for clinicians in intensive care units. This descriptive study aimed to find the most reliable, sensitive, and valid tool for assessing pain. The researcher and a nurse simultaneously assessed 47 nonverbal patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit by using 3 tools: the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), and the adult Nonverbal Pain Scale (NVPS) before, during, and after turning and suctioning. All tools were found to be reliable and valid (Cronbach α = 0.95 for both the BPS and the CPOT, α = 0.86 for the NVPS), and all subscales of both the BPS and CPOT were highly sensitive for assessing pain (P < .001). The NVPS physiology (P = .21) and respiratory (P = .16) subscales were not sensitive for assessing pain. The BPS was the most reliable, valid, and sensitive tool, with the CPOT considered an appropriate alternative tool for assessing pain. The NVPS is not recommended because of its inconsistent psychometric properties.


Ból ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-35
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gutysz-Wojnicka ◽  
Dorota Ozga ◽  
Ewa Mayzner-Zawadzka

“Gold standard” in the assessment of pain is patient’s subjective assessment by means of standardized numerical, analog-visual or verbal scales. Unconscious, sedated, mechanically ventilated patients are able to subjectively assess pain in this way. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit developed by a working group of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCCM) state that adult patients treated in the ICU routinely experience pain at rest and during routine care. The guidelines recommend routine monitoring of pain in all adult patients in the ICU using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) or Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). Cultural adaptation was conducted in Poland, psychometric properties of Polish version of Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) were evaluated. Internal consistency determined by Cronbach’s alpha amounted to 0.6883. The correlation coefficients between items of the scale and the sum score in the pain phase were in the range 0.27-0.28. The analysis of principal components confirmed that all the components of the scale respectively, the face, the upper limbs, synchronization with the respirator are one factor and explain 63.9% of the rating variation, while discriminatory accuracy of the scale was unconfirmed. The value of pain assessment using the Polish version of BPS increased significantly, also in the case of routine painless procedures, most likely due to other factors. That prevented the unambiguous interpretation of the results of the pain assessment and enforced additional data from other sources in the assessment of pain. The reason for the lack of discriminant accuracy can be vague operationalization of the scale indicators especially in the category: Face and Synchronization with the ventilator and the lack of adequate training for personnel in scale application. The aim of the study was to prepare the Polish version of Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) with more favorable psychometric properties. Based on the analysis of the literature individual scale indicators included in the categories of Face and Synchronization with the ventilator and the scheme of their scoring were re-defined. The result of the study is modified Polish version of BPS. Conclusions: The validation process of the research tool is not a one-time process. The implementation of the scale into clinical practice is required as well as further monitoring of its reliability and validity indicators. It is necessary to implement the system of personnel training in BPS application


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 453-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rima H. Bouajram ◽  
Christian M. Sebat ◽  
Dawn Love ◽  
Erin L. Louie ◽  
Machelle D. Wilson ◽  
...  

Background:Self-reported and behavioral pain assessment scales are often used interchangeably in critically ill patients due to fluctuations in mental status. The correlation between scales is not well elucidated. The purpose of this study was to describe the correlation between self-reported and behavioral pain scores in critically ill patients.Methods:Pain was assessed using behavioral and self-reported pain assessment tools. Behavioral pain tools included Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS). Self-reported pain tools included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scales. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. Patient preference regarding pain assessment method was queried. Correlation between scores was evaluated.Results:A total of 115 patients were included: 67 patients were nondelirious and 48 patients were delirious. The overall correlation between self-reported (NRS) and behavioral (CPOT) pain scales was poor (0.30, P = .018). In patients without delirium, a strong correlation was found between the 2 behavioral pain scales (0.94, P < .0001) and 2 self-reported pain scales (0.77, P < .0001). Self-reported pain scale (NRS) and behavioral pain scale (CPOT) were poorly correlated with each other (0.28, P = .021). In patients with delirium, there was a strong correlation between behavioral pain scales (0.86, P < .0001) and a moderate correlation between self-reported pain scales (0.69, P < .0001). There was no apparent correlation between self-reported (NRS) and behavioral pain scales (CPOT) in patients with delirium (0.23, P = .12). Most participants preferred self-reported pain assessment.Conclusion:Self-reported pain scales and behavioral pain scales cannot be used interchangeably. Current validated behavioral pain scales may not accurately reflect self-reported pain in critically ill patients.


Author(s):  
Caíque Jordan Nunes Ribeiro ◽  
Andra Carla Santos de Araújo ◽  
Saulo Barreto Brito ◽  
Daniele Vieira Dantas ◽  
Caíque Jordan Nunes Ribeiro ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Gélinas ◽  
Aaron M. Joffe ◽  
Paul M. Szumita ◽  
Jean-Francois Payen ◽  
Mélanie Bérubé ◽  
...  

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Mia Hylén

The aim of the thesis was to translate, psychometrically test, and further develop the Behavioral Pain Scale for pain assessment in intensive care and to analyze if any other variables (besides the behavioral domains) could affect the pain assessments. Furthermore, the aim was to explore the patients’ experience of pain within the intensive care. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), consisting of the domains “facial expression,” “upper limbs,” and “compliance with ventilator/vocalization,” was translated andculturally adapted into Swedish and psychometrically tested in a sample of 20 patients(study I). The instrument was then further developed within one of the domains and tested for inter-rater reliability, discriminant validity, and criterion validity (study II). The method for analysis in both study I and II was a method specifically developed for paired, ordered, and categorical data. To describe and analyze the process of pain assessment, a General Linear Mixed Model was used to investigate what variables, besides the behaviors, could be associated with the observers’ own assessment of the patients’ pain (study III). Further, the patients’ experiences of pain when being cared for in intensive care were explored (study IV) through interviews with 16 participants post intensive care. Qualitative thematic analysis with an inductive approach was used for the analysis. The first psychometric tests of the BPS (study I) showed inter-rater reliability with agreement of 85%. For the discriminant validity, all domains, except “compliance with ventilator,” indicated discriminant validity. Therefore, in study II, a developed domain of “breathing pattern” was tested alongside the original version. The BPS showed discriminant validity for both the original and the developed version and an inter-rater reliability with agreement of 76-80%. Wheninspecting the respective domains there was a difference in discriminant validity between the original domain of “compliance with ventilation” and the developed domain of “breathing pattern,” showing higher values on the scale for the developed domain during turning. For criterion validity, the BPS showed a higher sensitivity than the observers, who on the contrary had a higher specificity.The General Linear Mix Model (study III) showed that heart rate could be associated with the observers’ assessments of pain. For the behavioral signs, the result indicated that breathing pattern was most associated with the observers’ pain assessment, whilst facial expression did not show any impact on the observers’ assessments. The patients’ experiences of pain (study IV) in intensive care were described as generating a need for control; they experienced a lack of control when pain was present and continuously struggled to regain control. The experience of pain was not only related to the physical sensation but also to psychological and social aspects, along with the balance in the care given, which was important to the participants. In conclusion, the translated and developed version of the Swedish BPS showed promising psychometric results in assessing pain in the adult intensive care patients. Still, other signs, besides behavioral, is possibly used when pain assessing and therefore information about and training in pain assessment are needed to enhance the assessments that are made. Also, the patients’ own experiences highlight the importance of individualizing and adapting pain assessment and treatment to the needs of each patient. Making them a part of the team could enhance their feeling of control, thereby supporting them in facing the experience of pain.


2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gérald Chanques ◽  
Jean-François Payen ◽  
Grégoire Mercier ◽  
Sylvie de Lattre ◽  
Eric Viel ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document