Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:23:56.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of the short-form Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF) and derivation of an analgesic intervention score

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

J Reid ,
AM Nolan ,
JML Hughes ,
D Lascelles ,
P Pawson  and
EM Scott
J Reid*
Affiliation:
Institute of Comparative Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK
AM Nolan
Affiliation:
Institute of Comparative Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK
JML Hughes
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, UCD Veterinary Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, UK
D Lascelles
Affiliation:
Comparative Pain Research Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
P Pawson
Affiliation:
Institute of Comparative Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK
EM Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QW, UK
*
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS) for dogs suffering acute pain, developed using psychometric methodology, measures pain to a level of precision suitable for clinical trials. However, for routine clinical use, where the emphasis is on speed, ease of use, and guidance for analgesia provision, a short form (CMPS-SF) was developed. The CMPS-SF comprises six behavioural categories with associated descriptive expressions (items): vocalisation (4), attention to wound (5), mobility (5), response to touch (6), demeanour (5) and posture/activity (5). Items are placed in increasing order of pain intensity and numbered accordingly. The observer chooses that item within each category which best describes the dog's behaviour and ranked scores are summed; the maximum pain score is 24, or 20 if mobility is impossible to assess. Veterinary surgeons in Glasgow, University College Dublin and North Carolina Veterinary Schools completed the CMPS-SF for 122 dogs undergoing post-operative care and thereafter were asked “Do you think this animal requires analgesia? Yes/No”. The population difference in median pain score, for dogs considered to require analgesia (seven) compared with those that did not (three), was highly statistically significant (P < 0.001). Consideration of a clinical decision-point for analgesia gave an intervention level of 6/24, and 5/20 when section B (mobility assessment) could not be carried out. Difficulties in recognising pain contribute to the sub-optimal use of analgesics in veterinary practice. The CMPS-SF provides a practical means of assessing acute post-operative pain and provides guidance with regard to analgesic requirement, so improving pain management and welfare. The CMPS-SF can be downloaded from the Glasgow Pain and Welfare website at http://www.gla.ac.uk/vet/painandwelfare.

Keywords

animal painanimal welfaredogmeasurementpsychometric
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue S1: Quality of Life: the heart of the matter: Proceedings of the UFAW/BVA Ethics Committee International Symposium, The Royal Society, London, 13-14 September 2006. , May 2007 , pp. 97 - 104
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Capner, C, Lascelles, B and Waterman-Pearson, A 1999 Current British veterinary attitudes to perioperative analgesia for dogs. Veterinary Record 145: 95–99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conzemius, MG, Hill, CM, Sammarco, JL and Perkowski, SZ 1997 Correlation between subjective and objective measures used to determine the severity of post-operative pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 210: 1619–1622Google ScholarPubMed
Dodman, N, Clarke, GH, Court, MH, Fikes, LL and Boudrieau, RK 1992 Epidural opioid administration for postoperative pain relief in the dog. In: Short, CE and Van Pozna, A (eds) Animal Pain pp 274–277. Churchill Livingstone: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Dohoo, S and Dohoo, I 1996 Postoperative use of analgesics in dogs and cats by Canadian veterinarians. Canadian Veterinary Journal 37: 546–551Google ScholarPubMed
Firth, A and Haldane, S 1999 Development of a scale to evaluate pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 214: 651–659Google ScholarPubMed
Fox, S, Mellor, D, Stafford, K, Lowoko, C and Hodge, H 2000 The effects of ovariohysterectomy plus different combinations of halothane anaesthesia and butorphanol on behaviour in the bitch. Research in Veterinary Science 68: 265–274CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellyer, PW and Gaynor, JS 1998 Acute post-surgical pain in dogs and cats. The Compendium of Continuing Education (Small Animal) 20(2): 140–153Google Scholar
Holton, LL 2000 The measurement of pain in dogs. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow, UKGoogle Scholar
Holton, L, Reid, J, Scott, EM, Pawson, P and Nolan, A 2001 Development of a behaviour-based scale to measure acute pain in dogs. Veterinary Record 148: 525–531CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holton, L, Scott, EM, Nolan, AM, Reid, J, Welsh, E and Flaherty, D 1998 Comparison of three methods used for assessment of pain in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 61–66Google ScholarPubMed
Hugonnard, M, Leblond, A, Keroack, S, Cadore, J and Troncy, E 2004 Attitudes and concerns of French veterinarians towards pain and analgesia in dogs and cats. Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia 31: 154–163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landgraf, JM and Abetz, LN 1996 Measuring health outcomes in pediatric populations: issues in psychometrics and application. In: Spilker, B (ed) Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (2nd Edition) pp 793–802. Lippincott-Raven: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Lascelles, B, Capner, C and Waterman, A 1995 Survey of perioperative analgesic use in small animals. Veterinary Record 137: 23–30Google ScholarPubMed
Melzack, R 1987 The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 30: 191–197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, C, Reid, J, Scott, E, Holton, L and Nolan, A 2005 Application of a scaling model to establish and validate an interval level pain scale for assessment of acute pain in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 66: 2154–2166CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, DB and Griffiths, PHM 1985 Guidelines on the recognition of pain, distress and discomfort in experimental animals and a hypothesis of assessment. The Veterinary Record 116: 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanford, J, Ewbank, R, Molony, V, Tavernor, WD and Uvarov, O 1986 Guidelines for the recognition and assessment of pain in animals. The Veterinary Record 118: 334–338Google Scholar
Streiner, DL 1993 Research methods in psychiatry. A checklist for evaluating the usefulness of rating scales. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 38: 140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, G and Jennett, B 1974 Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale. The Lancet 2: 81–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, V, Lascelles, B and Robson, M 2005 Current attitudes to, and use of, peri-operative analgesia in dogs and cats by veterinarians in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 53: 193–203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed