Pain assessment: the cornerstone to optimal pain management

Measuring the quality of patient-centered care: why patient-reported measures are critical to reliable assessment

PURPOSE

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified patient-centeredness as crucial to quality health care. The IOM endorsed six patient-centeredness dimensions that stipulated that care must be: respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; coordinated and integrated; provide information, communication, and education; ensure physical comfort; provide emotional support; and involve family and friends. Patient-reported measures examine the patient's perspective and are essential to the accurate assessment of patient-centered care. This article's objectives are to: 1) use the six IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimensions as a framework to outline why patient-reported measures are crucial to the reliable measurement of patient-centered care; and 2) to identify existing patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centered care dimension.

METHODS

For each IOM-endorsed patient-centeredness dimension, the published literature was searched to highlight the essential role of patients in assessing patient-centered care and informing quality improvement efforts. Existing literature was also searched to identify examples of patient-reported measures that assess each patient-centeredness dimension.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported measures are arguably the best way to measure patient-centeredness. For instance, patients are best positioned to determine whether care aligns with patient values, preferences, and needs and the Measure of Patient Preferences is an example of a patient-reported measure that does so. Furthermore, only the patient knows whether they received the level of information desired, and if information was understood and can be recalled. Patient-reported measures that examine information provision include the Lung Information Needs Questionnaire and the EORTC QLQ-INFO25. In relation to physical comfort, only patients can report the severity of physical symptoms and whether medications provide adequate relief. Patient-reported measures that investigate physical comfort include the Pain Care Quality Survey and the Brief Pain Inventory. Using patient-reported measures to regularly measure patient-centered care is critical to identifying areas of health care where improvements are needed.

Assessment of pain among a group of Nigerian dental patients

Background

Pain is considered a key symptom associated with possible impairment of oral-health-related quality of life and its assessment is important for the planning and evaluation of preventive and treatment effort. The tools for assessing pain must therefore be valid and consistent. The objective of this study was to assess dental patients’ level of pain based on the clinical diagnosis of their dental condition and the correlation between two pain assessment scales, Visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Full Cup Test (FCT), for the assessment of pain among dental patients.

Methods

A total of 185 patients presenting at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital dental outpatient clinics with various forms of orofacial pain were included in this study. The mean VAS scores and mean FCT scores for the different dental conditions were compared. Agreement between VAS and FCT was evaluated using the Intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients and Cronbach alpha coefficient was also calculated to assess consistency of the two pain scales.

Results

Majority i.e. 95.1, 96.2 and 100% who presented with acute pulpitis, acute apical periodontitis and pericoronitis respectively, presented with moderate to severe pain levels (p < 0.05). Only 25.9 and 4% who presented with chronic marginal gingivitis and chronic pulpitis respectively presented with no pain (p < 0.05). A large proportion (75%) of patients with no pain had single diagnosis while more than half (52.1%) of those who presented with severe pain had multiple diagnoses (p = 0.025). The mean VAS and FCT scores for acute pain were 6.1 ± 2.1 and 5.9 ± 2.4 respectively and for chronic pain 3.9 ± 2.7 and 3.7 ± 2.7 respectively (P = 0.001). The interclass correlation coefficient revealed that the mean VAS and FCT scores were statistically correlated and reliable with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.85.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that patients who presented with either acute or chronic dental conditions may experience moderate to severe level of pain, with patients with multiple diagnoses experiencing more severe pain, and there is a correlation between the VAS and FCT for pain assessment among dental patients.

The prevalence of musculoskeletal pain & its associated factors among female Saudi school teachers

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the prevalence and identify the associated factors of musculoskeletal pain among Saudi female school teachers.

METHODS

An observational quantitative cross-sectional survey of female Saudi school teachers in five different areas of Saudi Arabia was carried out between August and October 2013. A self-administered questionnaire was used in which the items related to participants' demographic information and pain information were included. A numeric pain rating scale was used for patient self-reporting of pain. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS Pc+ version 21.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eighty six female school teachers responded to the survey. Severe Low back pain was reported by 38.1% of teacher, followed by knee pain (26.3%), heel (24.1%), shoulder (20.6%), upper back (17.7%), hip joint (16.5%),ankle (12.3%), neck (11.3%). Sever pain of elbow (5.6%) and wrist (7.4%) was the least reported. Pain affected work at school in 46.1% of school teachers. A combination of variables: body mass index, Vitamin D deficiency, teaching level, presence of chronic illness, were found to be significantly associated with musculoskeletal pain.

CONCLUSION

The results of self-reported prevalence of musculoskeletal pain among female Saudi school teachers is useful to educate the school teachers for adequate care so as to prevent these pains. There is a need for the higher authorities to address this issue and implement intervention programs to alleviate the pain and suffering of these school teachers.

Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population

Background

Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-month period prevalence of LBP by location and intensity measures at baseline.

Methods

In this cross-sectional report from a prospective cohort study, 828 participants were workers enrolled from 30 facilities performing a variety of manual material handling tasks. All participants underwent a structured interview detailing pain rating and location. Symptoms in the lower extremities, demographic and other data were collected. Body mass indices were measured. Outcomes are pain rating (0–10) in five defined lumbar back areas (i) LBP in the past month and (ii) LBP on the day of enrollment. Pain ratings were reported on a 0–10 scale and subsequently collapsed with ratings of 1–3, 4–6 and 7–10 classified as low, medium and high respectively.

Results

172 (20.8%) and 364 (44.0%) of the 828 participants reported pain on the day of enrollment or within the past month, respectively. The most common area of LBP was in the immediate paraspinal area with 130 (75.6%) participants with point prevalence LBP and 278 (77.4%) with 1-month period prevalence reported having LBP in the immediate paraspinal area. Among those 364 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain, ratings varied widely with 116 (31.9%) reporting ratings classified as low, 170 (46.7%) medium and 78 (21.4%) providing high pain ratings in any location. Among the 278 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain in the immediate paraspinal area, 89 (32.0%) reported ratings classified as low, 129 (46.4%), medium and 60 (21.6%) high pain ratings.

Conclusions

Pain ratings varied widely, however less variability was seen in pain location, with immediate paraspinal region being the most common. Variations may suggest different etiological factors related to LBP. Aggregation of different locations of pain or different intensities of pain into one binary classification of LBP may result in loss of information which may potentially be useful in prevention or treatment of LBP.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-283) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are we missing the Institute of Medicine's mark? A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures assessing quality of patient-centred cancer care

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has endorsed six dimensions of patient-centredness as crucial to providing quality healthcare. These dimensions outline that care must be: 1) respectful to patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; 2) coordinated and integrated; 3) provide information, communication, and education; 4) ensure physical comfort; 5) provide emotional support-relieving fear and anxiety; and 6) involve family and friends. However, whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comprehensively cover these dimensions remains unexplored. This systematic review examined whether PROMs designed to assess the quality of patient-centred cancer care addressed all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and the psychometric properties of these measures.

METHODS

Medline, PsycINFO, Current Contents, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched to retrieve published studies describing the development and psychometric properties of PROMs assessing the quality of patient-centred cancer care. Two authors determined if eligible PROMs included the six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care and evaluated the adequacy of psychometric properties based on recommended criteria for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, face/content validity, construct validity and cross-cultural adaptation.

RESULTS

Across all 21 PROMs, the most commonly included IOM dimension of patient-centred care was "information, communication and education" (19 measures). In contrast, only five measures assessed the "involvement of family and friends." Two measures included one IOM-endorsed patient-centred care dimension, two measures had two dimensions, seven measures had three dimensions, five measures had four dimensions, and four measures had five dimensions. One measure, the Indicators (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), covered all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care, but had adequate face/content validity only. Eighteen measures met the recommended adequacy criteria for construct validity, 15 for face/content validity, seven for internal consistency, three for cross-cultural adaptation and no measure for test-retest reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no psychometrically rigorous PROMs developed with cancer patients that capture all six IOM dimensions of patient-centred care. Using more than one measure or expanding existing measures to cover all six patient-centred care dimensions could improve assessment and delivery of patient-centred care. Construction of new comprehensive measures with acceptable psychometric properties that can be used with the general cancer population may also be warranted.

Attitudes of patients toward adoption of 3D technology in pain assessment: qualitative perspective

BACKGROUND

Past research has revealed that insufficient pain assessment could, and often, has negative implications on the provision of quality health care. While current available clinical approaches have proven to be valid interventions, they are expensive and can often fail in providing efficient pain measurements. The increase in the prevalence of pain calls for more intuitive pain assessment solutions. Computerized alternatives have already been proposed both in the literature and in commerce, but may lack essential qualities such as accuracy of the collected clinical information and effective patient-clinician interaction. In response to this concern, 3-dimensional (3D) technology could become the innovative intervention needed to support and improve the pain assessment process.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to describe qualitative findings from a study which was designed to explore patients' perceptions of adopting 3D technology in the assessment of their pain experience related to important themes that might positively or negatively influence the quality of the pain assessment process.

METHODS

The perceptions of 60 individuals with some form of pain in the area of Greater London were collected through semi-structured interviews. Of the 60 respondents, 24 (43%) produced usable responses and were analyzed for content using principles of the grounded theory approach and thematic analysis, in order to gain insight into the participants' beliefs and attitudes towards adopting 3D technology in pain assessment.

RESULTS

The analysis identified 4 high-level core themes that were representative of the participants' responses. These themes indicated that most respondents valued "the potential of 3D technology to facilitate better assessment of pain" as the most useful outcome of adopting a 3D approach. Respondents also expressed their opinions on the usability of the 3D approach, with no important concerns reported about its perceived ease of use. Our findings finally, showed that respondents appreciated the perceived clinical utility of the proposed approach, which could further have an influence on their intention to use it.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlighted factors that are seen as essential for improving the assessment of pain, and demonstrated the need for a strong focus on patient-clinician communication. The participants of this analysis believed that the introduction of 3D technology in the process might be a useful mechanism for such a positive health care outcome. The study's findings could also be used to make recommendations concerning the potential for inclusion of 3D technology in current clinical pain tools for the purpose of improving the quality of health care.

Low-rate repetitive nerve stimulation protocol in an Italian cohort of patients affected by recessive myotonia congenita

Transitory depression of the compound muscle action potential during repetitive nerve stimulation is a well-documented neurophysiologic finding in recessive myotonia congenita. It represents the neurophysiologic counterpart of the transitory weakness often impairing patients at the beginning of a movement after rest, and it is usually better induced using high-rate nerve stimulations. The authors examined 30 patients with recessive myotonia congenita and carried out a 3 Hz nerve stimulation study to ascertain to what extent this protocol was able to detect the occurrence of transitory depression. Their findings were compared with the results obtained by 12 patients affected by dominant myotonia congenita and 12 patients affected by nondystrophic myotonia due to SCN4A mutations. Molecular genetic analysis of the CLCN1 and SCN4A genes was also performed. The 3 Hz nerve stimulation protocol was well tolerated and showed high sensitivity, resulting positive in 66% of recessive case and good reproducibility, if performed after an adequate period of rest. All dominant cases and all patients affected by myotonia due to SCN4A mutations showed negative results. Molecular studies identified 26 different CLCN1 mutations, 16 of which were novel. Transitory depression confirmed to vary in accordance to CLCN1 mutations. The 3 Hz protocol was well tolerated and showed good sensitivity and reproducibility. Furthermore, this test might be suitable for genotype-phenotype correlation studies.

Pain intensity and severe pain in young immigrant patients with long-standing back pain

The aim of this study was to explore if self-rated pain intensity and severe pain differed significantly between immigrants from different regions, and if other socio-economic, or clinical, characteristics could predict severe pain. A total of 129 men and 217 women at a primary health centre in Stockholm, Sweden, 27-45 years, on long-term sick leave, were recruited in consecutive order and grouped into a Turkish (n = 122), Southern European (n = 52), Middle East (n = 69) and one Mixed (n = 173) group of immigrants. All were employed in service jobs. Somatic status, depression and level of psychosocial stressors, including pain anxiety, were established by standardized procedures. All reported long-standing disabling back pain. Patients rated intensity of pain "right now" on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) as a last part of the consultation with two doctors. Severe pain was defined as VAS 75-100. Median values (md) with inter-quartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for interval and ordinal data. Non-parametric statistics were used to calculate significant differences between groups. Crude and age-standardized odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) as rating severe pain were calculated by binary and forward conditional logistic regression. Men and women were analyzed separately. Women had more tender points, (P < 0.001), and reported pain anxiety more often (P < 0.01). Frequency of depression did not differ between the immigrant groups. The VAS-values varied, but not significantly, between the immigrant groups of men and women. Men had lower VAS values than women (md 50, IQR 36-69 vs. md 72, IQR 51-85), (P < 0.001). Women had a three-fold risk to rate severe pain (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.8-4.7). By sex, no immigrant group had significantly elevated OR to rate severe pain. Being 40-45 year old doubled the OR as rating severe pain. Men with depression, or little education, had high risks as rating severe pain (age-standardized ORs 4.1; 95% CI 1.7-10.0 and 2.7; 95% CI 1.1-6.8, respectively), and so had depressed women (age-standardized OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.4). Women with pain anxiety had a doubled, not statistically significant, elevated risk (age-standardized OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.95-4.3). The groups did not differ significantly in pain intensity or severe pain. Severe pain was predicted by depressed mood and probably linked to gender, age and sick roles.

Development of a new pain scale: Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale for sedated adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures

A limited number of studies have addressed pain assessment among sedated patients undergoing a gastrointestinal examination. The Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale is a quick, simple tool that can provide an estimation of the patient's comfort level while sedated. Multiple studies completed in intensive care unit and postanesthesia care unit settings provide ample evidence of the accuracy of behavioral pain scales ratings. In developing the Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale, experienced endoscopy nurses provided suggestions and modifications of descriptive words for behavioral assessment of pain selected from the relevant literature. Three nurses simultaneously rated pain using the scale for 30 procedures. Interrater reliability was high with 82% of observations in total agreement and 17% having one of the three persons disagreeing on the rating. Nurses from four hospitals and one ambulatory facility also evaluated the Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale tool. In this evaluation, 98% of the 52 respondents agreed that the words described what they observed during a gastrointestinal examination and 94% felt it was a better descriptor of pain than a patient self-report numerical scale. Assessment of pain for the sedated patient undergoing gastrointestinal procedures is often difficult due to the patient's inability to report pain levels. The sedated patient undergoing painful procedures depends on the nurse to interpret physical signs to quantify his or her distress. The Acute Pain Management Guidelines (AHCPR, 1992) promotes the use of both physiological and behavioral responses to pain for assessment when self-report is absent. While an individual's self-report of pain intensity and distress is the most accurate assessment measurement, the validity of a sedated patient's elicited response about pain is questionable. It is the nurse, through observation, who attempts to assess the sedated individual's pain levels.