Authors

  1. Speer, Kathy
  2. Chamblee, Tracy
  3. Tidwell, Jerithea

Abstract

Review question/objective: The objectives of the review are to evaluate evidence on:

 

1. the accuracy of self-report pain assessment tools;

 

2. the accuracy of a bundled approach (combined self-report and behavioral/observational pain assessment tools) in identifying acute pain intensity among hospitalized pediatric patients between the ages of six and 15 years.

 

 

More specifically, the review question is:

 

Is a bundled self-report and behavioral pain assessment tool more accurate in identifying acute pain intensity among hospitalized children aged six to 15 years of age compared to a self-report pain assessment tool?

 

Background: Pain is a pervasive and complex phenomenon, a universal experience that is unique to each individual.1 The International Association for the Study of Pain defines pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience.2 An individual's perception and response to pain is unique and depends on several factors including biological, psychological, and social factors.1 Further, there are two commonly accepted constants in relation to pain - pain is always subjective and always unpleasant.3 In children, assessing for the presence of pain is a challenge. Like adults, infants and children do experience pain yet pain in children is often under-treated.4 In the past, assumptions about the experience of pain in infancy were related to nervous system immaturity. Over the years, those assumptions have been proven wrong; healthy term neonates are able to respond to pain from birth.5

 

Despite the fact that pain in children has been studied for more than three decades, pain in hospitalized children continues to be underreported and hospitalized children continue to suffer due to inadequate pain control.5,6,7 Pain is estimated to impact 15-25% of children and adolescents.8,9 The most common types of pain experienced by children and adolescents are: headache, abdominal pain and musculoskeletal pain.9 In 2001, in the United States, the Joint Commission developed standards of care for pain management in hospitalized children and adults.10 Effectiveness of pain management is also an important concept evaluated via patient and family satisfaction surveys.10

 

Pain is also a symptom. Acute pain can indicate a worsening condition or signify the need for pain relieving interventions, such as distraction or the administration of analgesics.11 While clinicians are aware that pain occurs because of injury, illness or medical procedures and that pain is a common symptom experienced during hospitalization, identification of pain in children remains challenging. Accurate assessment is a key component of pain management. Even though several valid tools for rating pain intensity in children are available for use in clinical practice, none of these tools have been identified as the most suitable to use in all circumstances.12,13 This represents a practice gap. The ramifications of inconsistent pain assessment practices are significant; uncontrolled pain impacts a child's future experience with pain.

 

Pain assessment

 

Self-report pain assessment tools:

 

Because pain is a subjective experience, self-reporting of pain is considered the gold standard. One strategy for describing pain is to quantify the pain intensity using a tool. In children, pain is difficult to quantify due to several child-related factors: the child's developmental level, the current medical condition, and the child's previous experience with pain.14 From a developmental perspective, to use a tool, a child needs to be able to classify, order, match and estimate. Developmentally these skills begin to emerge by the age of three to four years. Currently, several self-report pain assessment tools designed for children are available for use. For example, the Poker Chip tool (also known as the Pieces of Hurt tool)15, the Oucher scale16, and the Wong-Baker FACES scale17 are all reliable and valid tools that may be used on children as young as three to four years of age. For older children, numeric rating scales (NRS) and visual analog scales (VAS) may be used. Variations of VAS for use in children include the use of numbers or words to describe increasing pain intensity, as well as the use of a finger span scale. Pediatric self-report scales should be reasonably reliable and valid, developmentally and culturally appropriate, easy to use and understand, well-liked by patients and clinicians, inexpensive, easy to disinfect, and available with instructions in different languages.18

 

Behavioral/observational pain assessment tools:

 

The two primary methods of behavioral assessment of pain are direct observation and ratings by others. Direct observation is the preferred method for assessing the rate and duration of pain while pain intensity can be assessed using a rating scale.11 Behavioral observation is primarily used to assess pain in children with limited verbal and cognitive skills. Key observations included in behavioral pain assessment tools include vocalization (crying and groaning), facial expression, body posture, rigidity, undue quietness, and an inability to be consoled. Examples of commonly used behavioral pain assessment tools are the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS)19, the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC)20 and the COMFORT Scale.21 An important conceptual issue related to behavioral assessment is specificity of the scales in measuring pain versus behavioral distress.11 Therefore it is important to consider the context of a child's behavior when using behavioral assessment tools to guide pain therapies.

 

Use of combined self-report and behavioral pain assessment tools:

 

In 2006, von Baeyer posited that self-reports of pain are an oversimplification of the complexity of the pain experience; there are many sources of bias and error in self-reports of pain.18 Because of this, self-report pain assessments in children should be considered along with other sources of information about the child's pain experience, such as direct observation, knowledge of the circumstances of the pain, and parent reports to ensure accurate assessment. The use of a combination of self-report and behavioral assessment (also known as a bundled approach) as a best practice is recommended, due to the fact that assessing pain in children can be complicated by anxiety, fear and stress.12,23

 

Contributing factors

 

There are also other factors that are likely to contribute to inconsistent assessment of pain in children. For example, Melby identified inadequate assessment skills, failure to use available pain assessment tools, failure to listen to the child's report of pain, and a failure to use pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions creatively as clinician-related factors that contribute to under-reporting of pain in children.12 Abu-Saad and Hamers identified a nurse's personal experience with pain as a source of influence on his/her response to assessment of a child's pain.24 Further in healthcare settings, there are no validated indicators of under-managed pain. Because of this, Twycross suggests that under-managed pain be viewed as an adverse event.25

 

The outcome measures of interest in the study include: the instrument used to identify pain, characteristics of the instrument, comparison of the variables assessed, and psychometric properties of the instruments including reliability and validity.

 

Importance of this review

 

In summary, pain is one of the most common symptoms that hospitalized children face. Over the last three decades, pediatric pain management has been a focus in pediatric acute care. Professional healthcare and hospital accrediting organizations have developed standards and regulations addressing pain management in children and adults. We also see pain relief as a factor being addressed in patient and family satisfaction surveys. Despite this, pediatric pain remains under-estimated and under-treated. Implications of this project include identification of best practice related to pain assessment for hospitalized children, which is a clinical practice priority. Two systematic reviews on pediatric pain assessment were identified in the literature.26,27 These reviews recommended pediatric pain tools, both self-report and observational, for use as outcome measures in clinical trials based on specified review criteria. Neither review addressed a bundled approach to assess pediatric pain. The proposed systematic review seeks to answer the question: is a bundled self-report and behavioral pain assessment tool more accurate in identifying acute pain intensity among hospitalized children aged six to 15 years compared to a self-report pain assessment tool?

 

Article Content

Inclusion criteria

Types of participants

This review will consider studies that include pediatric patients with acute pain, hospitalized between the ages of six and 15 years. Exclusions include children with chronic pain, ICU patients who are sedated or intubated, and patients being treated for pain with cancer. Studies will be excluded if the focus is on children with developmental delays, infants or children experiencing chronic pain or pain associated with cancer, neonatal patients and adult patients.

 

Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest

This review will consider studies that evaluate acute pain in hospitalized children utilizing self-report pain assessment tools compared to a combination of behavioral/observational pain assessment tools, and self-report tools.

 

Types of outcomes

This review will consider studies that include the following outcome measures: presence or absence of pain, pain intensity rating (measured by a score on a self-report tool by self or by proxy), analgesic use as measured by type, dosage and frequency of administration, physical signs/symptoms of pain presence as measured by vital signs, crying and agitation.

 

Types of studies

This review will consider both experimental and epidemiological study designs including randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, before and after studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies and analytical cross sectional studies

 

This review will also consider descriptive epidemiological study designs including case series, individual case reports and descriptive cross sectional studies

 

Search strategy

The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search strategy will be utilized in this review. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe article. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified reports and articles will be searched for additional studies. Studies published in English will be considered for inclusion in this review. Studies published between 1985 and 2015 will be considered for inclusion in this review. We chose this range to include the majority of seminal work on pain assessment and pain interventions. Older publications will be considered if they are considered a gold standard.

 

The databases to be searched include:

 

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica dataBASE(EMBASE), PsycINFO database

 

The search for unpublished studies will include:

 

Mednar and ProQuest

 

Initial keywords to be used will be:

 

pediatric, pain, assessment, tools, behavioral, children, pain scale, analgesia, pain assessment

 

Assessment of methodological quality

Papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) (Appendix I. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.

 

Data extraction

Data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI (Appendix II). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.

 

Data synthesis

Quantitative data will, where possible be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using JBI-MAStARI. All results will be subject to double data entry. Effect sizes expressed as odds ratio (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed statistically using the standard Chi-square and also explored using subgroup analyses based on the different study designs included in this review. Where statistical pooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.

 

References

 

1. Institute of Medicine. Relieving Pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. [Context Link]

 

2. Merskey H, Bogduk N. Classification of chronic pain 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press, 1994. [Context Link]

 

3. International Association of the Study of Pain [Internet]. 2012 May 22 [cited 2015 March 9]. Available from: http://www.iasp-pain.org/Education/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1698&navItemNumber=57[Context Link]

 

4. Andrews KF, Fitzgerald M. Cutaneous flexion reflex in human neonates: A qualitative study of threshold and stimuli-response characteristics after single and repeated stimuli. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1999; 1(1): 693-703. [Context Link]

 

5. Beyer J. Judging the effectiveness of analgesia for children and adolescents during vaso-occlusive events of sickle cell disease. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000; 19(1): 63-72. [Context Link]

 

6. Kotzer A. Factors predicting post-operative pain in children and adolescents following spine fusion. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs. 2000; 23(2): 83-102. [Context Link]

 

7. Duignan M, Dunn V. Congruence of pain assessment between nurses and emergency department patients: A replication. Int Emerg Nursg. 2008; 16(1): 23-28. [Context Link]

 

8. McGrath, PA. Speechley, KN. Seifert, CE. et al. A survey of children's acute, recurrent, and chronic pain: validation of the Pain Experience Interview. Pain. 2000; 87 (1):59-73. [Context Link]

 

9. Perquin CW, Hazebroek-Kampschreur AA, Hunfeld JA, et al. Pain in children and adolescents: a common experience. Pain. 2000; 87(1): 51-58. [Context Link]

 

10. Joint Commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations. Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Joint Commission International Standards for Hospitals, Oak Brook Terrace, IL: The Commission, 2001. [Context Link]

 

11. Blount R, Loiselle K. Behavioral assessment of pediatric pain. Pain Res Manag. 2009; 4(1), 47-52. [Context Link]

 

12. Melby, V. Acute pain relief in children: Use of rating scales and analgesia. Emerg Nurse. 2011; 19(6), 32-37. [Context Link]

 

13. Psalios S. Pediatric pain assessment: Hospital] 2013 Evidence Summary, JBI COnNECT+. [Internet]. 2013, [cited 2013 Mar 09]. Available from: http://connect.jbiconnectplus.org/ViewDocument.aspx?0=9867[Context Link]

 

14. Merkel S, Malviya S. Pediatric pain, tools, and assessment. J Perianesth Nurs. 2000; 15(6), 408-414. [Context Link]

 

15. Hester N, Foster R, Kristensen K. Measurement of pain in children: Generalizability and validity of the pain ladder and the poker chip tool, in Tyler DC, Krane EJ (eds): [Context Link]

 

16. Beyer JE, Denyes MJ, Villarruel AM. The creation, validation, and continuing development of the oucher: A measure of pain intensity in children. J Pediatr Nurs. 1992; 7(5):335-346. [Context Link]

 

17. Wong DL, Baker CM: Pain in children: Comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs. 1988; 14(1):9-17 [Context Link]

 

18. von Baeyer C. Children's self-reports of pain intensity: Scale selection, limitations, and interpretation. Pain Res Manag. 2006 11(3), 157-162. [Context Link]

 

19. McGrath, PJ, Johnson, G, Goodman JT, Dunn J, Chapman J. CHEOPS: A behavioral scale for rating postoperative pain in children. In: Fields HL, Dubner R, Cervero F, editors. Adv Pain Res Ther. New York: Raven Press. 1985, p. 395-402. [Context Link]

 

20. Merkel SL, Voepel-Lewis T,Shayevitz JR, Mayviya SA. Behavioral scale for scoring post-operative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs. 1997; 23(6): 293-297 [Context Link]

 

21. Ambuel B, Hamlett KW, Marx CM, Blumer JL. Assessing distress in pediatric intensive care environments: The COMFORT scale. J Pediatr Psychol. 1997; 75(1): 95-109. [Context Link]

 

22. Finley GA, Behavioral measures of pain. In Finley GA, McGrath PJ.editors. Measurement of pain in infants and children: Progress in pain research and management, vol 10. Seattle, IASP Press, p 83.

 

23. Nilsson S, Finnstrom B, Kokinsky E. The FLACC behavioral scale for procedural pain assessment in children aged 5-16 years. Paediatr Anaesth. 2008; 18(8): 767-774. [Context Link]

 

24. Abu-Saad H, & Hamers J. Decision-making and paediatric pain: A review. J Adv Nurs.1997; 26(5): 946-952. [Context Link]

 

25. Twycross, AM. Maclaren Chorney J. McGrath PJ, Finley GA, Boliver DM. Mifflin KA. A delphi study to identify indicators of poorly managed pain for pediatric postoperative and procedural pain. Pain Res Manag. 2013; 18(5): 68-74. [Context Link]

 

26. Stinson J, Kavanagh T, Yamada J, Gill N, Stevens B. Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents. Pain. 2006; 125(1-2):143-157. [Context Link]

 

27. von Baeyer CL, Spagrud LJ. Systematic review of observational (behavioral) measures of pain for children and adolescents aged 3 to 18 years. Pain. 2007; 127(1-2): 140-150. [Context Link]

Appendix I: Appraisal instruments

MAStARI appraisal instrument[Context Link]

Appendix II: Data extraction instruments

MAStARI data extraction instrument[Context Link]

 

Keywords: pediatric pain assessment; pain measurement in children; pain assessment tools