| Literature DB >> 35719218 |
Lene Tandle Lyngstad1, Solfrid Steinnes1, Flore Le Marechal1.
Abstract
Preterm birth is a risk factor for early experience of pain. Despite advances in neonatal care, evidence-based knowledge of the importance of adequate pain management and strong international guidelines for assessment and treatment of neonatal pain, only 10% of sick term and preterm infants were assessed for pain and stress on a daily basis. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project is evaluation of implemented guidelines for pain assessment and management, and increased parental involvement in a Norwegian single-family room NICU. Method: The different steps of the project entailed translation of the English version of COMFORTneo, development and implementation of guidelines with flowcharts for pain management, and pain assessment certification of the interprofessional staff. Part two of the project is supervision of the interprofessional staff in parental involvement in stress- and painful procedures. Our study showed that one year after implementation, 88.8% of the COMFORTneo assessments were performed according to the pain management guidelines. The staff used the flowcharts to assess, treat and reassess pain and stress. There was a high interrater reliability with linearly weighted Cohen's kappa values ranging from 0.81 to 0.95, with a median of 0.90. In addition, our study showed increased parental involvement in procedures, from 50.3% before to 82.3% after the quality improvement project. The success of this quality improvement project is explained by systematic use of flowcharts and implemented guidelines for pain management, interprofessional collaboration, and cultural change agents. Theoretical lectures and practical bedside supervision to interprofessional staff increased parental involvement in stress- and painful procedures.Entities:
Keywords: pain management; preterm infant; quality improvement; single‐family room
Year: 2022 PMID: 35719218 PMCID: PMC9189914 DOI: 10.1002/pne2.12075
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Paediatr Neonatal Pain ISSN: 2637-3807
Quality improvement project: a stepwise approach
| Steps | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Assessment of the problem |
Founded in NICU management Common understanding of inadequate pain management Establishment of an interprofessional Pain Group |
| 2. Literature review |
Choice on pain assessment tool Pain management for prolonged and procedural pain Parental involvement in procedures |
| 3. Development of a pain management strategy |
PDSA cycle as a QI framework Certification of the Pain Group Translation of the English version of COMFORTneo Development of a flowchart Development of comprehensive material for staff education Development of procedures for treatment of pain and stress |
| 4. Education of the NICU staff |
Certification of the staff with theory and bedside supervision Development of a cultural guide |
| 5. Implementation of new pain tool and guidelines |
Systematic use of COMFORTneo, flowcharts, and protocols Kick off Daily supervision, report, and discussion during the medical rounds Parental involvement in procedures |
| 6. Monitoring of quality improvement data |
Staff interrater reliability Compliance with pain management guidelines Parental involvement in procedures |
| 7. Continually improvement |
Increased pain assessment Revised flowchart |
Abbreviations: NICU, Neonatal intensive care unit; PDSA, Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act; QI, Quality improvement.
Translation of the English version of COMFORTneo to Norwegian following Wild's 10 step
| Step 1. Preparation | Contact with Dr VanDijk, developer of the COMFORTneo, who gave the permission for translation of the English version. |
|---|---|
| Step 2. Forward translation | 2 neonatal nurses translated the instrument from English into Norwegian. Both were bilingual in English and Norwegian and worked in a level 3 NICU. |
| Step 3. Reconciliation | The two different translated versions were discussed and reconciled into a single forward translation. |
| Step 4. Back translation | The back translation was carried out by a native English speaking professional translator. The translation was more literal than conceptual. |
| Step 5. and Step 6. Back translation review and harmonization | LTL and SS analyzed the back translation. Several items varied from the original instrument. The back translation review included a skype meeting with the instrument developer, where conceptual issues were discussed. In the harmonization, the concepts of the translated items were discussed. The Danish version and the Norwegian version of the COMFORTneo scale were scrutinized, with the purpose of deciding on the best possible wording. |
| Step 7. and Step 8. Cognitive debriefing and review, involving pilot testing of content and clinical utility | A focus group interview was conducted to assess item comprehensibility. 6 neonatal nurses specializing in neonatology and experienced in pain assessment participated. Three were familiar with the Danish version of the COMFORTneo. The nurses scored a neonate undergoing a painful procedure (heelprick) and discussed thoroughly all items of the scale including NRS. They found that the COMFORTneo scale is user friendly and comprehensive. |
| Step 9. and Step 10. Proofreading and final report. | LTL and SS finalized the last steps. The Norwegian version was published on the COMFORTneo website. |
Abbreviation: NICU, Neonatal intensive care unit.
Demographics Study 2 & 3
|
Pre‐study Patients (n = 37) |
Post‐study Patients (n = 52) | |
|---|---|---|
| Weight at birth (g), mean (min‐max) | 2545 (638‐4460) | 2649 (570‐4440) |
| Gestational age (weeks), mean (min‐max) | 34.1 (24.6‐42.0) | 35.6 (26.6‐42.2) |
| Post‐menstrual age (weeks), mean (min‐max) | 34.5 (26.2‐43.4) | 37.2 (31.4‐42.3) |
| Gastric tube§, n (%) | 25 (67.6) | 41 (78.9) |
| Ventilation support§, n (%) | ||
| High flow | 4 (10.8) | 10 (19.2) |
| CPAP | 4 (10.8) | 6 (11.5) |
| Mechanical ventilation | 1 (2.7) | 0 (0) |
| PVC, n (%) | 18 (48.6) | 12 (23.1) |
Abbreviations: CPAP, Continuous positive airway pressure; PVC, peripheral venous cannula.
†Information was retrieved from the Norwegian medical quality registry
‡Same patients in study
FIGURE 1Results study 2 (compliance to pain management guidelines). †75.0% of the scores were 14 and 90.0% of the scores were associated with low NRS pain or low NRS stress
Results Study 3
| Pre‐study Pain‐ or stressful procedures with parental involvement | Post‐study Pain‐ or stressful procedures with parental involvement | |
|---|---|---|
| Venipuncture, n/N (%) | 66/101 (65.3) | 133/153 (86.9) |
| Insertion of gastric tube, n/N (%) | 19/38 (50.0) | 33/45 (73.3) |
| Insertion of PVC, n/N (%) | 0/31 (0.0) | 19/27 (70.4) |
| Airway suction, n/N (%) | 24/47 (51.1) | 19/25 (76.0) |
| Total of procedures, n/N (%) | 109/217 (50.2) | 204/250 (81.6) |
Abbreviation: PVC, Peripheral venous cannula
†n/N: number of painful or stressful procedures with parental involvement/total amount of painful or stressful procedures.
§Parental involvement.