We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Acute Pain Assessment in Sedated Patients in the Postanesthesia Care Unit.
Clinical Journal of Pain 2018 August
CONTEXT: Acute postoperative pain remains inadequately assessed and managed. A valid instrument that assesses acute pain in sedated postanesthesia care unit (PACU) patients is needed.
OBJECTIVES: Two behavioral pain assessment instruments, the NonVerbal Pain Scale Revised (NVPS-R) and Critical-care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), were used to determine whether these instruments adequately assess acute pain in the PACU.
METHODS: A crossover study design was used. The study was conducted in the Medical Services Administration at the Puerto Rico Medical Center. Upon PACU arrival, patient sedation levels were evaluated using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. Acute pain was assessed using the CPOT (scored, 0 to 8) and the NVPS-R (scored, 0 to 10) at timepoints 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Descriptive statistics and mixed model regression analysis were used to compare pain score assessment between instruments.
RESULTS: Clinically significant increases in vital signs and respiratory indicators using the NVPS-R were not seen in patients with significant pain at time 0, 15, and 120 minutes. The CPOT vocalization indicator was more frequent in patients with significant pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that NVPS-R and CPOT can assess acute pain in sedated PACU patients. In patients with significant pain, the CPOT vocalization indicator was more consistent than physiological and respiratory indicators in detecting acute pain. Thus, our data do not support the exclusive use of vital sign indicators to assess acute pain, suggesting the superiority of the CPOT for the assessment of acute pain in sedated PACU patients.
OBJECTIVES: Two behavioral pain assessment instruments, the NonVerbal Pain Scale Revised (NVPS-R) and Critical-care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), were used to determine whether these instruments adequately assess acute pain in the PACU.
METHODS: A crossover study design was used. The study was conducted in the Medical Services Administration at the Puerto Rico Medical Center. Upon PACU arrival, patient sedation levels were evaluated using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. Acute pain was assessed using the CPOT (scored, 0 to 8) and the NVPS-R (scored, 0 to 10) at timepoints 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes. Descriptive statistics and mixed model regression analysis were used to compare pain score assessment between instruments.
RESULTS: Clinically significant increases in vital signs and respiratory indicators using the NVPS-R were not seen in patients with significant pain at time 0, 15, and 120 minutes. The CPOT vocalization indicator was more frequent in patients with significant pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that NVPS-R and CPOT can assess acute pain in sedated PACU patients. In patients with significant pain, the CPOT vocalization indicator was more consistent than physiological and respiratory indicators in detecting acute pain. Thus, our data do not support the exclusive use of vital sign indicators to assess acute pain, suggesting the superiority of the CPOT for the assessment of acute pain in sedated PACU patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
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
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