Item selection and content validity of the Critical‐Care Pain Observation Tool for non‐verbal adults

Gélinas, Céline; Fillion, Lise; Puntillo, Kathleen

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04847.x

Cited by 73 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Supplemental Table 6 provides criteria from multiple acute HF, global HF, and non-HF sources to aid in determining the timing of consultation in CS. 15,278,[295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309][310] We suggest that the multidisciplinary assessment team include a palliative care physician, regardless of MCS candidacy, given the risk of peri-implantation death.…”

Section: Suggestions For Clinical Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Diepen¹,

Katz²,

Albert³

et al. 2017

Circulation

1,285

1,165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities. Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a low-cardiac-output state resulting in life-threatening end-organ hypoperfusion and hypoxia.1,2 Acute myocardial infarction (MI) with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains the most frequent cause of CS. 1,3 Advances in reperfusion therapy have been associated with improvements in survival, but significant regional disparities in evidence-based care have been reported, and in-hospital mortality remains high (27%-51%).1,4-9 Management recommendations are distributed between disease-specific statements and guidelines, and a dedicated and comprehensive clinical resource in this area is lacking. Thus, consolidating the evidence to define contemporary best medical and surgical CS practices for both MI-associated CS and other types of CS may be an important step in knowledge translation to help attenuate disparities in evidence-based care.Regional systems of care coupled with treatment algorithms have improved survival in high-acuity time-sensitive conditions such as MI, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and trauma.10-12 Applying a similar framework to CS management may lead to similar improvements in survival, and CS systems of care are emerging within existing regional cardiovascular emergency care networks; however, guidance from a national expert group on structure and systems of care has not been available. 13,14 Accordingly, the purposes of this American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on CS are to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and in-hospital best care practices into a single clinical resource document; to suggest a stepwise management algorithm that integrates medical, surgical, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapies; and to propose a Mission: Lifelinesupported pathway for the development of integrated regionalized CS systems of care. DEFINITION OF CSAcute cardiac hemodynamic instability may result from disorders that impair function of the myocardium, valves, conduction system, or pericardium, either in isolation HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVESBefore the routine use of early revascularization, MIassociated CS had an in-hospital mortality exceeding 80%. A registry trial of 250 patients with acute MI described the association between bedside physical examination (Killip classification) for the as...

show abstract

Section: Suggestions For Clinical Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Diepen¹,

Katz²,

Albert³

et al. 2017

Circulation

1,285

1,165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,15,16 However, during the immediate postoperative period, anesthetic effects may prevent report of pain; therefore, it is appropriate to assume that pain is present and provide treatment based on the knowledge that surgery is painful. 17 Behavioral pain scales such as the Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators for the cognitively impaired 18 or the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool for the critically ill, 19 may be beneficial in patients who cannot selfreport and have pain behaviors. However, most behavioral pain assessment tools have not been validated in older AAs; thus, clinicians should be aware that there may be differences in measurement outcomes between racial and ethnic groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain Management for Older African Americans in the Perianesthesia Setting: The “Eight I's”

Booker¹,

Herr²

2015

Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Each domain is scored from 0 to 2, total scores range from 0 (no pain) to 8 (most pain). [27] CPOT scoring system: Patients in a CPOT range of 1 to 3 is considered mild pain, CPOT range of 4 to 5 moderate pain and ≥ 6 sever pain. [27] Part 2 and 3 of the analgesia/sedation assessment tool were designed in a flow sheet which involves data from patient's admission till discharge.…”

Section: Part (2) Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (Rass)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was combined by the researchers after reviewing the related literature [25][26][27] to assess, monitor and document data of the studied patients during analgesia/sedation routine nursing practices throughout the study period. It consists of three parts: Part (1): Patient's Profile: This part was developed by the researchers to collect data about patient's sociodemographics and baseline characteristics including (gender, age, diagnosis, past history, indication of MV, GCS and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation APACHE II score).…”

Section: Tool One: Analgesia/sedation Assessment Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RASS is a 10-point scale with four levels for [26] RASS scoring system: Patients in a RASS range of -2 to +1 is considered lightly sedated, RASS range of -3 to -5 deeply sedated and >2 agitated. [26] Part (3) Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT): This scale was adopted from Gelinas et al (2008) and used by the researchers to assess patient's pain level. The CPOT consists of 4 domains: facial expression, body movement, muscle tension, and compliance with the ventilator.…”

Section: Part (2) Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (Rass)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards a Standardized Approach for Critical Care Nursing Practices: Development of Evidence Based Analgo-Sedation Guidelines for Adult Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Othman¹,

El-Hady²,

Ahmed³

et al. 2016

IOSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Item selection and content validity of the Critical‐Care Pain Observation Tool for non‐verbal adults

Abstract: Item selection and expert opinions are relevant aspects of tool development. While further evaluation is planned, the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool appears as a useful instrument to assess pain in critically ill patients.

Cited by 73 publications

References 28 publications

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Pain Management for Older African Americans in the Perianesthesia Setting: The “Eight I's”

Towards a Standardized Approach for Critical Care Nursing Practices: Development of Evidence Based Analgo-Sedation Guidelines for Adult Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About