Comparison of “Comfort” Score for Pain Performed by Nursing Staff and Primary Investigator in Paediatric Mechanically Ventilated Patients in a Tertiary Health Care Centre

K. Upasana, R. Chhabra, P. Maheshwari
{"title":"Comparison of “Comfort” Score for Pain Performed by Nursing Staff and Primary Investigator in Paediatric Mechanically Ventilated Patients in a Tertiary Health Care Centre","authors":"K. Upasana, R. Chhabra, P. Maheshwari","doi":"10.26502/jppch.74050053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: Mechanical ventilation can be traumatic despite administration of sedatives. Sedation can mask uncontrolled pain for intubated patients and prevent them from communicating it. An optimal scoring system for sedation and analgesia can facilitate comparisons. Aims: Compare the COMFORT score performed by the nursing staff on paediatric mechanically ventilated patients to the one performed by the principal investigator. Settings and Design: This Prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Sixty five patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Methods and Material: COMFORT scoring was performed by the nursing staff in Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) on all ventilated patients three times each day. The primary investigator performed the scoring at the same time, but independent of the staff, to enable comparison. Statistical analysis used: Statistical testing has been conducted with the statistical package version SPSS 20.0. For all statistical tests, a p value <0.05 will be taken to indicate a significant difference/association. Results: Our study showed significant difference in assessment of COMFORT score by the investigator and nursing staff. Of our patients, 44.6% were over sedated and 55.4% were optimally sedated. None were under sedated. No correlation was noted between the duration of intubation, age, gender, indication of intubation and type of cases with COMFORT score. However, significant association was found between COMFORT score and outcome of the patient, with lower scores for those who died in comparison to survivors. Conclusions: Presence of dedicated person for pain assessment can lead to more efficient management.","PeriodicalId":73894,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pediatrics, perinatology and child health","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pediatrics, perinatology and child health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/jppch.74050053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Mechanical ventilation can be traumatic despite administration of sedatives. Sedation can mask uncontrolled pain for intubated patients and prevent them from communicating it. An optimal scoring system for sedation and analgesia can facilitate comparisons. Aims: Compare the COMFORT score performed by the nursing staff on paediatric mechanically ventilated patients to the one performed by the principal investigator. Settings and Design: This Prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Sixty five patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Methods and Material: COMFORT scoring was performed by the nursing staff in Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) on all ventilated patients three times each day. The primary investigator performed the scoring at the same time, but independent of the staff, to enable comparison. Statistical analysis used: Statistical testing has been conducted with the statistical package version SPSS 20.0. For all statistical tests, a p value <0.05 will be taken to indicate a significant difference/association. Results: Our study showed significant difference in assessment of COMFORT score by the investigator and nursing staff. Of our patients, 44.6% were over sedated and 55.4% were optimally sedated. None were under sedated. No correlation was noted between the duration of intubation, age, gender, indication of intubation and type of cases with COMFORT score. However, significant association was found between COMFORT score and outcome of the patient, with lower scores for those who died in comparison to survivors. Conclusions: Presence of dedicated person for pain assessment can lead to more efficient management.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
某三级医疗保健中心儿童机械通气患者中护理人员与主要研究者疼痛“舒适”评分的比较
背景:尽管使用了镇静剂,机械通气仍可能造成创伤。镇静可以掩盖插管患者无法控制的疼痛,并阻止他们传达疼痛。一个最优的镇静和镇痛评分系统可以方便比较。目的:比较护理人员对儿科机械通气患者进行的COMFORT评分与主要研究者进行的评分。背景和设计:本前瞻性观察研究在一家三级保健医院进行。65例符合纳入标准的患者被纳入。方法和材料:由儿科重症监护病房(PICU)的护理人员对所有通气患者进行COMFORT评分,每天3次。主要研究者在同一时间进行评分,但独立于工作人员,以便进行比较。使用的统计分析:使用SPSS 20.0版本的统计软件包进行统计检验。对于所有统计检验,p值<0.05表示有显著差异/关联。结果:我们的研究显示研究者和护理人员对舒适度评分的评估有显著差异。在我们的患者中,44.6%过度镇静,55.4%处于最佳镇静状态。没有人服用镇静剂。气管插管时间、年龄、性别、气管插管指征与病例类型舒适度评分无相关性。然而,舒适度评分与患者预后之间存在显著关联,与幸存者相比,死亡患者的舒适度评分较低。结论:有专门的人员进行疼痛评估可以更有效地管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
De Novo Crohn's Disease Diagnosed in the Setting of Acute SARS-Cov-2 Infection Requiring Escalation of Infliximab Therapy Guided by Personalized Pharmacokinetics. Occupational dermatoses in health care personnel using PPE during the COVID pandemic. Correlation between Serum Testosterone Level and Erythrocytosis in Adolescent Males- A Cross-Sectional Study Real-World HbF Status in Sickle Cell Disease from an Endemic Zone A Rare Case of Childhood Hepatitis A Infection with Bilateral Pleural Effusion Acalculous Cholecystitis and Massive Ascites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1