AIMS: To assess the interplay between hope and the information provided by health care professionals. BACKGROUND: Earlier research learned that hope is crucial for relatives of traumatic coma patients. Also it has been reported that the need for information is extremely important for relatives of critically ill patients. DESIGN: A qualitative approach according to the 'grounded theory' method with constant comparison was used. METHOD: We held 24 in-depth interviews with 22 family members of 16 patients with traumatic coma. Data processing and data analysis took place in a cyclic process wherein the induction of themes was alternated by confrontation with new material. RESULTS: Family members of traumatic coma patients want information that is as accurate as possible, provided by doctors and nurses in an understandable manner and leaving room for hope. At first, family members can do no more than passively absorb the information they receive. After some time, they actively start working with information and learn what to build their hope on. In this way, concrete hope evolves and seems to be strongly determined by information. Information that is more positive than warranted is not appreciated at all. It leads to false hope and once its real nature becomes apparent, to increased distress and loss of trust in the professionals. CONCLUSION: The process of hope is crucial in coping with traumatic coma and information can facilitate this process. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: If professionals, especially nurses, keep the process in mind that family members go through in handling information, they can not only facilitate this process but also help them to establish realistic hope.
The Nociception Coma Scale is a nociception behaviour observation tool, developed specifically for patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) due to (acquired) brain injury. Over the years, the clinimetric properties of the NCS and its revised version (NCS-R) have been assessed, but no formal summary of these properties has been made. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the clinimetric properties (i.e. reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability) of the NCS(-R). We systematically searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science until August 2015. Two reviewers independently selected the clinimetric studies and extracted data with a structured form. Included studies were appraised on quality with the COSMIN checklist. Eight studies were found eligible and were appraised with the COSMIN checklist. Although nearly all studies lacked sample size calculation, and were executed by the same group of authors, the methodological quality ranged from fair to excellent. Important aspects of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness have been studied in depth and with sufficient methodological quality. The overview of clinimetric properties in this study shows that the NCS and NCS-R are both valid and useful instruments to assess nociceptive behaviour in DOC patients. The studies provide guidance for the choice in NCS-R cut-off value for possible pain treatment and cautions awareness of interprofessional differences in NCS-R measurements.SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review provides a structured overview of the clinimetric properties of the Nociception Coma Scale (-Revised) and provides insights for a solid evidence-based nociception behaviour assessment and treatment plan.
The Nociception Coma Scale (NCS) is a pain observation tool, developed for patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) due to acquired brain injury (ABI). The aim of this study was to assess the interrater reliability of the NCS and NCS-R among nurses for the assessment of pain in ABI patients with DOC. A secondary aim was further validation of both scales by assessing its discriminating abilities for the presence or absence of pain. Hospitalized patients with ABI (n = 10) were recorded on film during three conditions: baseline, after tactile stimulation, and after noxious stimulation. All stimulations were part of daily treatment for these patients. The 30 recordings were assessed with the NCS and NCS-R by 27 nurses from three university hospitals in the Netherlands. Each nurse viewed 9 to 12 recordings, totaling 270 assessments. Interrater reliability of the NCS/NCS-R items and total scores were estimated by intraclass correlations (ICC), which showed excellent and equal average measures reliability for the NCS and NCR-R total scores (ICC 0.95), and item scores (range 0.87-0.95). Secondary analysis was performed to assess differences in ICCs among nurses' education and experience and to assess the scales discriminating properties for the presence of pain. The NCS and NCS-R are valid and reproducible scales that can be used by nurses with an associate (of science) in nursing degree or baccalaureate (of science) in nursing degree. It seems that more experience with ABI patients is not a predictor for good agreement in the assessment of the NCS(-R).
