Jie Chen1,2,3, Fen Hu4, Jian Yang4, Xiao-Ying Wu5, Yi Feng6, Yan-Chun Zhan5, You-Zhong An5, Qian Lu3, Hai-Yan Zhang2,7. 1. University of Connecticut School of Nursing, Storrs, Connecticut. 2. Nursing Department, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. 3. School of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing, China. 4. Nursing Department, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China. 5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. 6. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, People's Hospital Peking University, Beijing, China. 7. Nursing Center, National Institute of Hospital Administration, Beijing, China.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To validate the Chinese version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in nonintubated and intubated ICU patients. BACKGROUND: While CPOT was found to have the best psychometric properties among objective pain assessment scales, there is no Chinese version CPOT for nonintubated patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design was used in these two observational studies. METHODS: Seventy-six nonintubated patients and 53 intubated patients were assessed to examine internal consistency, criterion-related and discriminative validity of CPOT in the first study. Pain assessment during low pain condition as well as increased pain condition was performed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Chinese version COPT. Forty nonintubated patients and 43 intubated patients were assessed to examine inter-rater reliability in the second study. A bedside nurse and a researcher independently executed paired pain assessments with CPOT in the same conditions. The STROBE Statement was followed to guide these studies. RESULTS: The Cronbach's α in nonintubated patients and intubated patients was 0.903-0.930 and 0.868-0.870. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in nonintubated patients ranged from 0.959-0.982, and the ICC in intubated patients ranged from 0.947-0.959, confirming the inter-rater reliability. The moderately positive Pearson's correlations between CPOT and NRS scores (r = 0.757-0.838 in nonintubated patients, r = 0.574-0.705 in intubated patients) indicated the criterion-related validity. A significant increase in CPOT scores in the increased pain condition compared with those acquired in the low pain condition verified the discriminative validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of CPOT was presented to be valid and reliable for both nonintubated and intubated critically ill adults, which could be applicable for pain assessment in patients in ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provides an applicable pain assessment tool for both nonintubated patients and intubated patients in ICU.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To validate the Chinese version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in nonintubated and intubated ICU patients. BACKGROUND: While CPOT was found to have the best psychometric properties among objective pain assessment scales, there is no Chinese version CPOT for nonintubated patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design was used in these two observational studies. METHODS: Seventy-six nonintubated patients and 53 intubated patients were assessed to examine internal consistency, criterion-related and discriminative validity of CPOT in the first study. Pain assessment during low pain condition as well as increased pain condition was performed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Chinese version COPT. Forty nonintubated patients and 43 intubated patients were assessed to examine inter-rater reliability in the second study. A bedside nurse and a researcher independently executed paired pain assessments with CPOT in the same conditions. The STROBE Statement was followed to guide these studies. RESULTS: The Cronbach's α in nonintubated patients and intubated patients was 0.903-0.930 and 0.868-0.870. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in nonintubated patients ranged from 0.959-0.982, and the ICC in intubated patients ranged from 0.947-0.959, confirming the inter-rater reliability. The moderately positive Pearson's correlations between CPOT and NRS scores (r = 0.757-0.838 in nonintubated patients, r = 0.574-0.705 in intubated patients) indicated the criterion-related validity. A significant increase in CPOT scores in the increased pain condition compared with those acquired in the low pain condition verified the discriminative validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of CPOT was presented to be valid and reliable for both nonintubated and intubated critically ill adults, which could be applicable for pain assessment in patients in ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provides an applicable pain assessment tool for both nonintubated patients and intubated patients in ICU.
Authors: Céline Gélinas; Mélanie Bérubé; Kathleen A Puntillo; Madalina Boitor; Melissa Richard-Lalonde; Francis Bernard; Virginie Williams; Aaron M Joffe; Craig Steiner; Rebekah Marsh; Louise Rose; Craig M Dale; Darina M Tsoller; Manon Choinière; David L Streiner Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 9.097