PURPOSE: To validate an adaptation of the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) for its use in non-intubated intensive care unit (ICU) patients unable to self-report their pain because of the occurrence of delirium. The "vocalization" domain was inserted to construct the BPS-non intubated (BPS-NI) scale, ranging from 3 (no pain) to 12 (most pain). DESIGN: Prospective psychometric study in a medical-surgical ICU. METHODS: The same physician and one bedside nurse rated pain in non-intubated patients unable to self-report their pain during four conditions: before and after a catheter dressing change (non-nociceptive procedure) and before and after turning the patient (nociceptive procedure). Delirium was assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). RESULTS: A total of 120 paired evaluations were performed in 30 consecutive adult patients, 84% with delirium (CAM-ICU positive). BPS-NI scores were higher during painful procedures than at rest [6.0 (5.0-8.0) vs. 3.0 (3.0-3.8); P < 0.001], while no changes in BPS-NI scores were found during non-nociceptive procedures (discriminative validity). The BPS-NI had good internal consistency (standardized Cronbach alpha = 0.79), and each domain reflected the pain expression factor in a balanced way (coefficients between 0.57 and 0.59). The BPS-NI had a good inter-rater reliability (weighted kappa coefficient = 0.89 for the four conditions and 0.82 during nociceptive procedures) and a good responsiveness, with an effect size ranging from 1.5 to 3.6. CONCLUSIONS: Pain during procedures is perceived even in non-intubated ICU patients with delirium. In those patients, pain level can be assessed with the BPS-NI scale since this instrument exhibited good psychometric properties. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1590-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
PURPOSE: To validate an adaptation of the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) for its use in non-intubated intensive care unit (ICU) patients unable to self-report their pain because of the occurrence of delirium. The "vocalization" domain was inserted to construct the BPS-non intubated (BPS-NI) scale, ranging from 3 (no pain) to 12 (most pain). DESIGN: Prospective psychometric study in a medical-surgical ICU. METHODS: The same physician and one bedside nurse rated pain in non-intubated patients unable to self-report their pain during four conditions: before and after a catheter dressing change (non-nociceptive procedure) and before and after turning the patient (nociceptive procedure). Delirium was assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). RESULTS: A total of 120 paired evaluations were performed in 30 consecutive adult patients, 84% with delirium (CAM-ICU positive). BPS-NI scores were higher during painful procedures than at rest [6.0 (5.0-8.0) vs. 3.0 (3.0-3.8); P < 0.001], while no changes in BPS-NI scores were found during non-nociceptive procedures (discriminative validity). The BPS-NI had good internal consistency (standardized Cronbach alpha = 0.79), and each domain reflected the pain expression factor in a balanced way (coefficients between 0.57 and 0.59). The BPS-NI had a good inter-rater reliability (weighted kappa coefficient = 0.89 for the four conditions and 0.82 during nociceptive procedures) and a good responsiveness, with an effect size ranging from 1.5 to 3.6. CONCLUSIONS:Pain during procedures is perceived even in non-intubated ICU patients with delirium. In those patients, pain level can be assessed with the BPS-NI scale since this instrument exhibited good psychometric properties. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1590-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Authors: Pratik Pandharipande; Ayumi Shintani; Josh Peterson; Brenda Truman Pun; Grant R Wilkinson; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: M T Claessens; J Lynn; Z Zhong; N A Desbiens; R S Phillips; A W Wu; F E Harrell; A F Connors Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mamoona Arif Rahu; Mary Jo Grap; Jeffrey F Cohn; Cindy L Munro; Debra E Lyon; Curtis N Sessler Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Deborah B McGuire; Karen Snow Kaiser; Mary Ellen Haisfield-Wolfe; Florence Iyamu Journal: Nurs Clin North Am Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.208
Authors: D Häske; B W Böttiger; B Bouillon; M Fischer; Gernot Gaier; B Gliwitzky; M Helm; P Hilbert-Carius; B Hossfeld; B Schempf; A Wafaisade; M Bernhard Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Mary Jo Grap; Cindy L Munro; Paul A Wetzel; Jessica M Ketchum; V Anne Hamilton; Curtis N Sessler Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 17.440