Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Perception of pediatric pain: a comparison of postoperative pain assessments between child, parent, nurse, and independent observer.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a subjective experience. In children with limited understanding and communication skills, reliable assessment of pain is challenging. Self-reporting of pain is the gold standard of pain measurement. For children who are unable to self-report their pain, assessments made by their parents are often used as a proxy measure. The validity of this approach has not been conclusively determined.

AIM: To investigate differences in the assessment of pediatric pain between children, parents, nurses, and independent observers in the acute postoperative setting.

METHOD: Three hundred and seven children (207 verbal, 100 nonverbal) undergoing elective day-case surgery were asked to participate in this quality of care audit. Pain scores given by verbal children, their parents, nurses, and independent observers were collected. A numerical rating scale or the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale was used. All participants were blinded from other scorers.

RESULTS: For verbal children, scores reported by patients and their parents did not differ significantly. Median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] scores by children, parents, nurses, and independent observers were, respectively, 2.0 (0-4.0), 2.0 (1.0-4.0), 0.0 (0-2.0), and 1.0 (0-2.0). In nonverbal children, median (IQR) scores by parents, nurses, and independent observers were 1.0 (0-3.0), 0 (0-1.0), and 0 (0-2.0), respectively. The agreement between the different scorers was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION: Children's pain self-reports should be used wherever possible to guide management, but in their absence, parental pain scores can be reliably used as a surrogate measure. Nurses and independent observers produce lower pain scores than parents or children, which may result in inadequate treatment of pain.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app