ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The reliability of pain assessment in frail and older adults has seldom been assessed. This study aims to assess the test-retest reliability of (1) the number of painful body sites, (2) pain intensity, and (3) pain extent in institutionalized older adults. METHODS: Seventy-four older adults who were institutionalized were assessed in 2 separate sessions, 2 days to 1 week apart, for pain intensity, number of painful body sites, and pain extent (in pixels) using a vertical pain numeric scale (0 to 10), a body chart divided into 50 body regions, and ImageJ, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable differences (MDDs) were calculated. RESULTS: In session 1, the mean values (± standard deviation) were 5.54 ± 2.12 points for pain intensity, 4.47 ± 3.27 for number of painful body sites, and 2,726.00 ± 2,322.09 for pain extent. ICCs were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.89) for pain intensity, 0.89 (95% CI = 0.83 to 0.93) for number of painful body sites, and 0.74 (95% CI = -0.07 to 0.91) for pain area. The MDDs were 2.46 for pain intensity, 3.14 for number of painful body sites, and 4,997.60 for pain extent. CONCLUSIONS: The vertical pain rating scale and the body chart seem reliable to assess pain intensity and number of pain sites, respectively. The wide CI for the ICC found for pain area and the high measurement error compromise its potential clinical relevance.
Subject(s)
Homes for the Aged , Institutionalization , Pain Measurement , Pain/diagnosis , Adult Day Care Centers , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Diagnosis, Differential , Diagnostic Errors , Diagnostic Self Evaluation , Female , Humans , Male , Nursing Homes , Pain/etiology , Pain/pathology , Pain Measurement/methods , Pain Measurement/standards , Portugal/epidemiology , Reproducibility of Results , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Deferred or inappropriate antibiotic treatment in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is associated with increased mortality, and clinical and radiological criteria are frequently employed to establish an early diagnosis. Culture results are used to confirm the clinical diagnosis and to adjust or sometimes withdraw antibiotic treatment. Tracheal aspirates have been shown to be useful for these purposes. Nonetheless, little is known about the usefulness of quantitative findings in tracheal secretions for diagnosing VAP. METHODS: To determine the value of quantification of bacterial colonies in tracheal aspirates for diagnosing VAP, we conducted a prospective follow-up study of 106 intensive care unit patients who were under ventilatory support. In total, the findings from 219 sequential weekly evaluations for VAP were examined. Clinical and radiological parameters were recorded and evaluated by three independent experts; a diagnosis of VAP required the agreement of at least two of the three experts. At the same time, cultures of tracheal aspirates were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively (10(5) colony-forming units [cfu]/ml and 10(6) cfu/ml) RESULTS: Quantitative cultures of tracheal aspirates (10(5) cfu/ml and 10(6) cfu/ml) exhibited increased specificity (48% and 78%, respectively) over qualitative cultures (23%), but decreased sensitivity (26% and 65%, respectively) as compared with the qualitative findings (81%). Quantification did not improve the ability to predict a diagnosis of VAP. CONCLUSION: Quantitative cultures of tracheal aspirates in selected critically ill patients have decreased sensitivity when compared with qualitative results, and they should not replace the latter to confirm a clinical diagnosis of VAP or to adjust antimicrobial therapy.
