Observational studyAnaesthesia2017
Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT): an observational study of physician-documented pain assessment in 45 intensive care units in the United Kingdom.
Observational study in Anaesthesia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diurnal Pain Classification in Critically Ill Patients using Machine Learning on Accelerometry and Analgesic Data.IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine workshops. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2023Article
- The Association between Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Using Pain Assessment Tools among Critically Ill Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Pain assessment and analgesic management in patients admitted to intensive care: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of a Multimodal Analgesia Protocol in an Intensive Care Unit: A Pre-post Cohort Study.Cureus · 2022Article
- A prospective comparison between multidisciplinary healthcare providers' clinical examination and a validated pain scale.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pain during and after coronavirus disease 2019: Chinese perspectives.Pain reports · 2021Review
- Chronic pain after COVID-19: implications for rehabilitation.British journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- Recall of pain and discomfort during oral procedures experienced by intubated critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: A qualitative elicitation study.Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2020Article
- Insights into Critical Care and Post-ICU Opiate Administration.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Chronic pain in critical care survivors: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2019Review
- Chronic Pain and Chronic Opioid Use After Intensive Care Discharge - Is It Time to Change Practice?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Review
- Observational
- Pain management protocol implementation and opioid consumption in critical care: an interrupted time series analysis.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pain is a common and distressing symptom experienced by intensive care patients. Assessing pain in this environment is challenging, and published guidelines have been inconsistently implemented. The Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT) study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of physician pain assessments with respect to published guidelines. This observational service evaluation considered all pain and analgesia-related entries in patients' records over a 24-h period, in 45 adult intensive care units (ICUs) in London and the South-East of England. Data were collected from 750 patients, reflecting the practice of 362 physicians. Nearly two-thirds of patients (n = 475, 64.5%, 95%CI 60.9-67.8%) received no physician-documented pain assessment during the 24-h study period. Just under one-third (n = 215, 28.6%, 95%CI 25.5-32.0%) received no nursing-documented pain assessment, and over one-fifth (n = 159, 21.2%, 95%CI 19.2-23.4)% received neither a doctor nor a nursing pain assessment. Two of the 45 ICUs used validated behavioural pain assessment tools. The likelihood of receiving a physician pain assessment was affected by the following factors: the number of nursing assessments performed; whether the patient was admitted as a surgical patient; the presence of tracheal tube or tracheostomy; and the length of stay in ICU. Physician-documented pain assessments in the majority of participating ICUs were infrequent and did not utilise recommended behavioural pain assessment tools. Further research to identify factors influencing physician pain assessment behaviour in ICU, such as human factors or cultural attitudes, is urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.