Children with severe motor and intellectual disabilities experience chronic pain but cannot communicate verbally. However, no Japanese tool currently exists for assessing pain in this population. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the Paediatric Pain Profile, which is a behavioral rating scale to assess pain in children with severe neurological disabilities. The sample comprised 30 children with severe motor and intellectual disabilities at three hospitals in Japan. Three specialist nurses rated low and high pain video scenes of the children (twice at 1-week intervals) using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability behavioral scale and a translated Japanese version of the Paediatric Pain Profile. On the basis of their ratings, we calculated the internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and intra- and inter-observer reliabilities of the Paediatric Pain Profile. Additionally, we assessed concurrent validity using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability behavioral scale and construct validity using low versus high pain scenes. Both internal consistency (low pain: alpha = 0.735; high pain: alpha = 0.928) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.846) of the Japanese version of the Paediatric Pain Profile were good. Intra-observer reliability was substantial (r = 0.748), whereas inter-observer reliability was only moderate (r = 0.529). However, the concurrent validity with Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scores was good (r = 0.629) and construct validity was confirmed (p < 0.001). We confirmed the validity of the Japanese version of the Paediatric Pain Profile, but reliable pain assessment may require repeated ratings by the same person. To accurately assess pain in children with severe motor and intellectual disabilities, healthcare staff must be properly trained and become more skilled in using the Japanese version of the Paediatric Pain Profile.

This survey aimed to evaluate the subjective meaningfulness of digitization using electronic medical records among Japanese nurses at two hospitals. This was based on a suggestion by students from the Catholic University of Applied Sciences in Freiburg, Germany. Data for this cross-sectional, exploratory survey were collected using an anonymous paper-based questionnaire. Participants were clinical nurses aged ≤60 years working in intensive care units or acute wards at Mie University Hospital and Kinan Hospital. After research ethics committee approval, eligible participants received an explanation about the study and were invited to complete the questionnaire. Responses were retrieved in November 2018, and checked and translated into English. Free-text comments were processed using text-mining software (KH Corder®). Seventy-one valid responses were retrieved. The valid response rate was 77% at Mie University Hospital and 84% at Kinan Hospital. Participants showed similar and positive perceptions of digitization (i.e., "To me digitization in my daily work is a good fit"). The selection of reasons for this perception showed similar patterns, although "Physical relief," was more commonly selected at Mie University Hospital than Kinan Hospital (p=0.001). Participants from the two hospitals also differed in terms of "Other reasons" and corresponding free-text comments. No nurses from Kinan Hospital provided comments, but over one-third of Mie University Hospital participants commented. The relationship analysis of the comments placed "information" at the center, surrounded by "share" and "easy." This survey showed most nurses perceived positive meaningfulness of digitization in clinical nursing. However, there may be some situation-based differences in meaningfulness.