Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34105066›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2021

Determinants of pain assessment documentation in intensive care units.

Jenna L Morris, Francis Bernard, Mélanie Bérubé, Jean-Nicolas Dubé, Julie Houle, Denny Laporta, Suzanne N Morin, Marc Perreault, David Williamson, Céline Gélinas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jenna L MorrisIngram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Francis BernardFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Neuro Intensive Care Unit and Research Centre, Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, CIUSSS Nord-Ile-Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Mélanie BérubéFaculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada.
Jean-Nicolas DubéFaculty of Medicine (campus Mauricie), Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Julie HouleDepartment of Nursing, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada.
Denny LaportaFaculty of Medicine, Respiratory Division, McGill University, Department of Medicine, Division of Adult Critical Care, Jewish General Hospital, CIUSSS West-Central-Montreal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Suzanne N MorinDepartment of Medicine, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Research Institute of McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Marc PerreaultFaculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
David WilliamsonFaculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Céline GélinasIngram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. celine.gelinas@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7948-5570

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe underassessment of pain is a major barrier to effective pain management, and the lack of pain assessment documentation has been associated with negative patient outcomes. This study aimed to 1) describe the contextual factors related to pain assessment and management in five Québec intensive care units (ICUs); 2) describe their pain assessment documentation practices; and 3) identify sociodemographic and clinical determinants related to pain assessment documentation.

methodsA descriptive-correlational retrospective design was used. Sociodemographic data (i.e., age, sex), clinical data (i.e., diagnosis, mechanical ventilation, level of consciousness, severity of illness, opioids, sedatives), and pain assessments were extracted from 345 medical charts of ICU admissions from five teaching hospitals between 2017 and 2019. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were performed.

resultsAll sites reported using the 0-10 numeric rating scale, but the implementation of a behavioural pain scale was variable across sites. A median of three documented pain assessments were performed per 24 hr, which is below the minimal recommendation of eight to 12 pain assessments per 24 hr. Overall, pain assessment was present in 70% of charts, but only 20% of opioid doses were followed by documented pain reassessment within one hour post-administration. Higher level of consciousness (β = 0.37), using only breakthrough doses (β = 0.24), and lower opioid doses (β = -0.21) were significant determinants of pain assessment documentation (adjusted R

conclusionPain assessment documentation is suboptimal in ICUs, especially for patients unable to self-report or those receiving higher opioid doses. Study findings highlight the need to implement tools to optimize pain assessment and documentation.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsPain ManagementDocumentationHumansPain MeasurementRetrospective Studiesdocumentationintensive carepainpain assessment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.