IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i19-20p3522-3529.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of three pain assessment scales used for ventilated neonates

Author

Listed:
  • Xiao‐Zhi Huang
  • Li Li
  • Jun Zhou
  • Fang He
  • Chun‐Xia Zhong
  • Bin Wang

Abstract

Aims and objectives To compare and evaluate the reliability, validity, feasibility, clinical utility, and nurses’ preference of the Premature Infant Pain Profile‐Revised, the Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale, and the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale used for procedural pain in ventilated neonates. Background Procedural pain is a common phenomenon but is undermanaged and underassessed in hospitalised neonates. Information for clinician selecting pain measurements to improve neonatal care and outcomes is still limited. Design A prospective observational study was used. Methods A total of 1,080 pain assessments were made at 90 neonates by two nurses independently, using three scales viewing three phases of videotaped painful (arterial blood sampling) and nonpainful procedures (diaper change). Internal consistency, inter‐rater reliability, discriminant validity, concurrent validity and convergent validity of scales were analysed. Feasibility, clinical utility and nurses’ preference of scales were also investigated. Results All three scales showed excellent inter‐rater coefficients (from 0.991–0.992) and good internal consistency (0.733 for the Premature Infant Pain Profile‐Revised, 0.837 for the Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale and 0.836 for the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale, respectively). Scores of painful and nonpainful procedures on the three scales changed significantly across the phases. There was a strong correlation between the three scales with adequate limits of agreement. The mean scores of the Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale for feasibility and utility were significantly higher than those of the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale, but not significantly higher than those of the Premature Infant Pain Profile‐Revised. The Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale was mostly preferred by 55.9% of the nurses, followed by the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale (23.5%) and the Premature Infant Pain Profile‐Revised (20.6%). Conclusions The three scales are all reliable and valid, but the Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale and the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale perform better in reliability. The Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale appears to be a better choice for frontier nurses to assess procedural pain in ventilated neonates based on its good feasibility, utility and nurses’ preference. Relevance to clinical practice Choosing a valid, reliable, feasible and practical measurement is the key step for better management of procedural pain for ventilated newborns. Using the right and suitable tool is helpful to accurately identify pain, ultimately improve the neonatal care and outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiao‐Zhi Huang & Li Li & Jun Zhou & Fang He & Chun‐Xia Zhong & Bin Wang, 2018. "Evaluation of three pain assessment scales used for ventilated neonates," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3522-3529, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:19-20:p:3522-3529
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14585
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14585?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:19-20:p:3522-3529. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.