Critical Appraisal of Pain Assessment Tools

Critical appraisal of anguish sensation opinion ToolsIntroduction diligents faceing with cunning disorder in hospital settings need immediate intervention and safekeeping to improve health issues (Department of wellness usefulness, 2007). When sodding(a) acute fuss is non in allowly man corned, this could look at to adverse psychological and physiological effects, uglyer health outcomes and prolonged hospital substantiation (ANZCA, 2005). In Australia, approximately a third of patient ofs in hospital settings report experiencing middle of the roader to severe upset at least once during their hospital stay (DHS, 2007). objet dart this figure may vary according to the population surveyed in hospital settings, it is observed that inadequate bruise relief is still present in these settings (ANZCA, 2005).Quality c ar for patients presenting with acute offend begins with the character of an appropriate torture judgment irradiation. The main aim of this auditi on is to critically revaluation current suffer judgment tools that are recommended by the Department of health Services (DHS, 2007). Published primary studies will be used to spotlight the critical analysis. The first part of this essay will compare a range of pain discernment tools for patients presenting with acute pain. The second part critically analyses pain perspicacity options for patients who are non-verbal, arrest significant cognitive evil or language functions disability. A conclusion will then tot the key issues raised in this essay.Critical Analysis of Current annoying Assessment Tools fuss judgement tools range from the use of subjective to intention pain-scoring assessment tools. Examples of subjective-pain scoring tools include the visual analogue case (VAS), quantitative range scale (NRS) and the faces pain scale (FPS). Objective measures include the behavioral pain assessment scale,functional activity score and Abbey Pain Scale. Currently, VAS is integrity of the recommended tools for assessing acute pain in different groups of patients (DHS, 2007). novel studies (Phan et al., 2012 Angthong, Cherchugit, Suntharapa, Harnroongroj, 2011 Boonstra, SchiphorstPreuper, Reneman, Posthumus, Stewart, 2008) select alike shown its cogency and reliability for different health conditions across different groups of patients and in various health care settings outside Australia. Apart from extensive publish data on the reliability and validity of the VAS, it is similarly shown to be to a greater extent sensitive when compared to descriptive pain scales (Boonstra et al., 2008).Mean period, a randomised controlled trial (Farrar, Troxel, Stott, Duncombe, Jensen, 2008) excessively shows the validity and reliability of the numeric paygrade scale not scarce in assessing acute pain but also in measurement spasticity of patients suffering from multiple sclerosis. This rating scale ranks pain from 1 to 10 or 0-11. However, it conver ts pain sensation to a number (Farrar et al., 2008). While it is conceptually straightforward, bears have to explain its use to the patients. This tool is also language dependent. Hence, it is necessary that non-English speaking patients should be assigned to nurses who speak the same language to drop the risk of misunderstanding on the use of NRS.Apart from VAS and NRS, FPS is also commonly used for pain assessment. One of the advantages of the FPS is its applicability in measuring stick pain durability in paediatric patients. In the field of operations of Tsze, von Baeyer, Bulloch and Dayan (2013) that recruited 620 patients aged 4 to 17 years old, FPS bespeaks strong psyc sign of the zodiactric properties for this age group. Importantly, this study shows that reliability and validity were also high between subgroups, sex, ethnicity and age of the children. Tsze et al. (2013) apply the prospective, observational study involving Spanish and English-speaking children. Althou gh this study design readiness increase the risk of observer bias due to its study design, a prospective study design is appropriate in validating the FPS (Polit, Beck Hungler, 2013). While one of the advantages of FPS is its acceptability in younger and paediatric patients (Tsze et al., 2013), it could also be used for the elderly.In Kim and Buschmann (2006), 31 older adults were recruited to determine the validity of the FPS. Findings suggest high construct validity and test-retest reliability of FPS. However, the small sample sizing of the study could limit the applicability of the findings to a larger and more mixed population (Polit et al., 2013). As a whole, these subjective pain assessment tools have high inter class correlation. A study conducted amongst Chinese patients during post-operative care (Li, Liu Herr, 2007) demonstrates high inter class correlation coefficients (ranging from 0.673 to 0.825) of VAS, FPS and NRS. This suggeststhat healthcare practitioners can use any of these tools and arrive at a similar pain assessment score.Meanwhile, objective measures for pain such as the behavioral pain assessment scale and functional activity score are used to assess pain of patients who are non-verbal or have suffered from cognitive impairment such as dementia (Husebo et al., 2008). However, this capacity increase the risk of rater bias (Hek, Judd Moule, 2011) since nurses and author(a) healthcare practitioners assess the pain level of the patient. Hence, it is important that inter-rater reliability and inbred consistency of these tools should be established. A recent study (Voepel-Lewis, Zanotti, Dammeyer Merkel, 2010) has shown the use of the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) behavioural scale, which is similar to the behavioural pain assessment scale, as an effective tool for pain assessment in critically ill adults and children. It has excellent inborn consistency (Cronbach alpha=0.882) and high inter-rater reliability.Ano ther objective pain assessment tool is the Abbey Pain Scale. This was developed to assess pain in patients with severe cognitive impairment such as those with severe dementia and non-verbal patients. Recent observational studies (Lukas, Barber, Johnson Gibson, 2013 Neville Ostini, 2013) demonstrated high validity and reliability of the Abbey Pain scale. In Neville and Ostini (2013), Abbey pain scale was compared with the Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators Scale and Doloplus-2. Findings suggest that all scales showed good psychometric qualities. However, the Abbey Pain Scale is more applicable for nurse raters who demonstrate lower levels of nursing qualification. Neville and Ostini (2013) suggest that nurses who rarely use pain rating scales could use the Abbey Pain Scale while still maintaining inter-rater reliability.Lukas et al. (2013) compared the Abbey Pain Scale with other pain assessment tools such as the Non-communicative Patients Pain Assessment Instrument (NOPPAIN) a nd the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (PAINAD). All these tools were validated to improve knowledge of the presence or absence of pain. These tools were also useful in service of process nurses rate the pain severity of older patients with dementia.While pain assessment is a prerequisite for appropriate management of acute pain, there are some concerns about the use of pain intensity scoring systems. It has been shown that pain is subjective. This suggests that self- account of pain is variable and could be influenced by a host of factors. Studies (Narayan, 2010 Garcia, Godoy-Izquierdo, Godoy, Perez Lopez-Chicheri, 2007) have shown that language, culture and psychological factors could all influence the perception of pain. Reynolds, Hanson, DeVellis, Henderson and Steinhauser (2008) explain that self- insurance coverage of pain only provides healthcare practitioners an insight into how patients perceive their pain levels.Variations in reporting of pain present a chal lenge to healthcare practitioners since this might lead to over or under-treatment of pain (Wilson, 2007). Other factors such as expectations of the patient in pain, the acceptability of translated tools and the methodology or terminology used during pain assessment might be foreign to the patients (Hall-Lord Larsson, 2006). All these could influence reporting of pain. There is also the risk that observers might underestimate the pain (Wilson, 2007). encourages knowledge on pain assessment is crucial since low levels of knowledge on pain assessment might affect how they assess the patients level of pain. Wilson (2007) argues that poor knowledge could lead to suboptimal care and poor pain management. This could have important consequences on patients since pain management might not be optimal. Hall-Lord and Larsson (2006) have stressed that pain assessment could be influenced by the nurses characteristics and knowledge of pain assessment. Lack of knowledge on pain assessment might lead to inaccurate pain assessment. In turn, this could lead to poor management and treatment of the underlying cause of pain. This also increases the risk of patients receiving wrong pain therapy (Wilson, 2007).ConclusionPain assessment is important in managing acute pain in hospital settings. Various tools have been tested for their reliability and validity. These are divided into subjective and objective pain assessment tools. The former is generally used for patients who do not have cognitive impairments while the latter is used for patients with severe cognitive impairment and non-verbal patients. Studies cited in this essay have shown the validity and reliability of these tools. Studies that compare the subjective pain assessments also show high inter-correlation. This suggests that any of the tools could be used to assess pain. disrespect extensive studies establishing the sensitivity, reliability and validity of the subjective tools, its application could still be limited. Pain is highly subjective and varies from one person to another. Objective tools might also be influenced by the nurses level of knowledge on pain assessment. Finally, this essay shows the need for nurses to increase their knowledge on pain assessment to ensure accurate assessment of pain.ReferencesAngthong, C., Cherchugit, B., Suntharapa, T., Harnroongroj, T. (2011). Visual analogue scale hoof and ankle validity and reliability of the Thai version of the new outcome score in subjective form. journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 94(8), 952-957.Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) (2005). Acute pain management scientific evidence. Australia and New Zealand ANZCA.Boonstra, A., SchiphorstPreuper, H., Reneman, M., Posthumus, J., Stewart, R. (2008). reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with continuing musculoskeletal pain. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 31(2), 165-169.Department of Heal th Service (DHS) (2007). Acute pain management, measurement toolkit. Australia DHS.Farrar, J., Troxel, A., Stott, C., Duncombe, P., Jensen, M. (2008). Validity, reliability, and clinical importance of change in a 0-10 numeric rating scale measure of spasticity a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Clinical Therapeutics, 30(5), 974-985.Garcia, E., Godoy-Izquierdo, D., Godoy, J., Perez, M., Lopez-Chicheri, I. (2007). Gender differences in pressure pain threshold in a repeated measures assessment. Psychology, Health Medicine, 12(5), 567-579.Hall-Lord, M., Larsson, B. (2006). Registered nurses and student nurses assessment of pain and distress related to specific pain and nurse characteristics. Nurse Education Today, 26(5), 377-387.Hek, G., Judd, M., Moule, P. (2011). Making Sense of Research (4th ed.). London Sage Publications.Husebo, B., Strand, L., Mo-Nilssen, R., BorgeHusebo, S., Aarsland, D., Lhunggren A. (2008). Who suffers intimately? Dementia and pain in nursing home patients a cross-sectional study. Journal of the American Medical Directors, 9(6), 427-433.Kim, E., Buschmann, M. (2006). Reliability and validity of the faces pain scale with older adults. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(4), 447-456.Li, L., Liu, X., Herr, K. (2007). Postoperative pain intensity assessment A comparison of four scales in Chinese adults. Pain Medicine, 8(3), 223-234.Lukas, A., Barber J., Johnson, P., Gibson, S. (2013). Observer-rated pain assessment instruments improve both the detection of pain and the evaluation of pain intensity in people with dementia. European Journal of Pain, 17(10), 1558-1568.Narayan, M. (2010). Cultures effects on pain assessment and management. American Journal of Nursing, 110(4), 38-47.Neville, C., Ostini, R. (2013). A psychometric evaluation of three pain rating scales for people with moderate to severe dementia. Pain Management Nursing, pii S1524-9042(13)00114-9. doi 10.1016/j.p,m.2013.08 .001.Phan, N., Blome, C., Fritz, F., Gerss, J., Reich, A., Ebata, T., Stander, S. (2012). Assessment of pruritus intensity a prospective study on validity and reliability of the visual analogue scale, numerical rating scale and verbal rating scale in 471 patients with chronic pruritus. ActaDermato-Venerologica, 92(5), 502-507.Polit, D., Beck, C. T., Hungler, B. P. (2013). Essentials of Nursing Research Methods, Appraisal and workout (8th ed.). Philadelphia, Lippincott.Reynolds, K., Hanson, L., DeVellis, R., Henderson, M., Steinhauser, K. (2008). Disparities in cognitively intact and cognitively impaired nursing home residents. Journal of Pain Symptoms, 15, 388-396.Tsze, D., von Baeyer, C., Bulloch, B., Dayan, P. (2013). Validation of self-report pain scales in children. Pediatrics, 132(4), 971-979.Voepel-Lewis, T., Zanotti, J., Dammeyer, J., Merkel, S. (2010). Reliability and validity of the face, legs, activity, cry, consolability behavioral tool in assessing acute pain in cr itically ill patients.American Journal of Critical Care, 19(1), 55-61.Wilson, B. (2007). Nurses knowledge of pain. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6), 1012-1020.1May Thu Khin, SID 440468145, SNGP3001