Pain prevalence and predictors among inpatients in a major Italian teaching hospital. A baseline survey towards a pain free hospital

Divorce and physical health: A three-level meta-analysis

Divorce is often considered a major and stressful life transition. Given that divorcees are overrepresented in primary care and there is a association between individuals' physical health and psychological adjustment, potential post-divorce health problems are of concern. Yet, empirical evidence is lacking on the magnitude of the overall physical health risk after divorce, on possible differences across specific pathologies, and on factors that may increase or reduce this risk. The current meta-analysis addresses these issues. We identified 94 studies including u = 248 relevant effect sizes, based on N = 1,384,507 participants. Generally, compared to married individuals, divorcees showed significantly worse self-reported health (OR = 1.20, [1.08-1.33]), experienced more physical symptoms (OR = 1.34, [1.17-1.53]), and had a higher risk for diabetes (OR = 1.18 [1.05-1.33]), joint pathologies (OR = 1.24, [1.14-1.34]), cardiovascular (OR = 1.24, [1.09-1.41]) and cerebrovascular conditions (OR = 1.31, [1.14-1.51]), and sexually transmitted diseases (OR = 2.48, [1.32-4.64]). However, they had no increased risk of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, cancer and cancer development, disabilities or limitations, or cognitive pathologies. Nor did divorcees significantly differ from married individuals when aggregating all pathologies to measure overall physical health problems (OR = 1.14, [0.85 to 1.54]). Yet, moderation analyses revealed that being female, unemployed, childless, or having a lower education constitutes a higher risk for overall physical health problems after divorce. The same applied to having a heavy alcohol consumption, lack of exercise, and being overweight. Our meta-analysis shows that divorcees are at heightened risk of certain pathologies, with sexually transmitted diseases as a particular post-divorce hazard. These findings call for more awareness among counsellors and physicians on divorcees' health conditions and the characteristics that make divorcees even more vulnerable to health problems.

Pain Prevalence and Treatment in Hospitalized Children and Adolescents at a US Tertiary Pediatric Hospital

Poorly controlled acute pain is associated with worsened patient outcomes. Prior studies suggest that acute pain is a common complaint among hospitalized pediatric patients, but recent studies with substantial numbers of patients from US hospitals are lacking. We retrospectively reviewed inpatients at a single academic children's hospital during twelve 24-hour periods in 2021. Outcomes were assessed for patients on non-intensive care unit (ICU) inpatient floors and in ICUs. The primary outcome was any presence of moderate to severe pain. Of 1355 patients on a non-ICU inpatient floor and 485 patients in the ICU, 23.5% and 58.6%, respectively, had ≥1 moderate to severe pain score during the 24-hour analysis period. While the mean pain score was low for the majority of patients, moderate to severe pain is frequent in hospitalized children. Future studies may focus on identification of variables associated with pediatric inpatients at risk of moderate to severe pain as well as improved pain prevention and reduction strategies.

Pain in Austrian hospitals: evaluation of 1089 in-patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the existence of internationally consistent guidelines for the management of pain, efficient regional anesthesia techniques, safe pain medications, and organizational structures, e.g., acute pain services, various studies have shown that pain is still common among both surgical and non-surgical in-patients.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate, on a multi-center basis, the point pain prevalence of surgical and non-surgical in-patients. We further analyzed pain intensities, in-hospital pain triggers, pain-related impairments, pain assessments, patient information about pain, and patient satisfaction with pain therapy. This benchmark information should lead to better implementation of pain management strategies and thus improve health care quality.

METHODS

We surveyed all adult in-patients in three general hospitals in Austria (general hospital Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, general hospital Villach, general hospital Wolfsberg) on the index day with two standardized questionnaires for both surgical and non-surgical patients.

RESULTS

Overall, a pain prevalence of 40.0%, with no statistically significant difference between surgical and non-surgical patients, was shown. Higher pain prevalence in female patients, high pain prevalence in the age group 18-30 years, and highest pain prevalence in the age group over 90 years old was found. Overall pain intensity was relatively low, but unacceptable maximum pain within the preceding 24 h was shown. Different in-hospital pain triggers like patient's care and mobilization were found. Our survey has shown that pain has an impact on personal hygiene, mobilization, mood, sleep, and appetite. However, patients were very satisfied with their pain therapy.

CONCLUSION

Medical staff and nurses have to be sensitized to the urgent need to improve pain management strategies.

Pain Prevalence and Satisfaction with Pain Management in Inpatients: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Pain in hospitalized adults is underestimated and undervalued. The aim of this study was to evaluate pain prevalence and satisfaction with the hospital's pain management among patients attending a tertiary university hospital. Predictor factors of pain were also studied.

METHODS

A prospective, cross-sectional study was carried out through a structured questionnaire given on one day to all hospitalized patients in a university hospital. Clinical data, such as personal history and analgesic treatment, were collected from medical records. Other variables related to pain (including intensity rated by the visual analogue scale as well as location and patient satisfaction measured by the numerical rating scale) were also obtained.

RESULTS

Of the 274 surveyed patients, pain prevalence was 52.9%, with an average intensity of 5.3 ± 2.8 according to VAS. The overall satisfaction was 87.2%, and 72.6% had already been prescribed at least one analgesic. Patients receiving analgesics showed higher pain intensity (VAS 3.6 ± 3.4) than those without treatment (VAS 1.1 ± 2.1) (p < 0.001). However, patients with treatment showed more satisfaction (NRS 7.8 ± 2 vs. 5.3 ± 1.4, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of pain in hospitalized patients was high, despite the fact that patient satisfaction was also very high.

Three-year hospital-wide pain management system implementation at a tertiary medical center: Pain prevalence analysis

We developed a pain management system over a 3-year period. In this project, "Towards a pain-free hospital", we combined evidence-based medicine and medical expertise to develop a series of policies. The intervention mainly included the development of standard procedures for inpatient pain management, the implementation of hospital-wide pain medicine education and training, the establishment of a dashboard system to track pain status, and regular audits and feedback. This study aimed to gain an understanding of the changes in the prevalence of pain in inpatients under the care of the pain management system. The subjects of the survey are inpatients over 20 years old, and who had been hospitalized in the general ward for at least 3 days. The patients would be excluded if they were unable to respond to the questions. We randomly selected eligible patients in the general ward. Our trained interviewers visited inpatients to complete the questionnaires designed by our pain care specialists. A total of 3,094 inpatients completed the survey from 2018 to 2020. During the three-year period, the prevalence of pain was 69.5% (2018) (reference), 63.3% (2019) (OR:0.768, p<0.01), and 60.1% (2020) (OR:0.662, p <0.001). The prevalence rates of pain in patients undergoing surgery during the 3-year period were 81.4% (2018), 74.3% (2019), and 68.8% (2020), respectively. As for care-related causes of pain, injection, change in position/chest percussion, and rehabilitation showed a decreasing trend over the 3-year period of study. Our pain management system provided immediate professional pain management, and achieved a good result in the management of acute moderate to severe pain, especially perioperative pain. Studies on pain prevalence and Pain-Free Hospitals are scarce in Asia. With the aid of the policies based on evidence-based medicine and the dashboard information system, from 2018 to 2020, the prevalence of pain has decreased year by year.

How Hospital Patients Experience Pain the Previous 24 Hours-A Prevalence Assessment of Pain in Five Hospitals in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Previous studies show that pain is common among hospital inpatients.

AIM

This study measures the prevalence of pain and the impact of pain on sleep in patients admitted to five hospitals in Sweden.

METHODS

The patients were admitted to a surgical or a medical ward. They answered on a self-reported questionnaire about their average pain intensity and how much their pain interfered with their sleep the previous 24 hours, on a 010 numerical rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

Of the 500 patients, 308 experienced pain (62%), (NRS ≥ 3) and 111 (22%) rated their pain as NRS ≥ 7. We found no difference between surgical and medical specialty regarding pain prevalence. The results suggest that roughly the same proportion of patients with pain also experienced poor sleep due to pain265 patients (53%) reported pain interference on sleep, NRS ≥ 3.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study shows that there is still an unacceptable high pain prevalence in inpatients and that patients experience pain as negatively impacting their sleep. Future pain care is likely to include a more comprehensive implementation strategy for the dissemination of knowledge, especially related to the complex context of today's healthcare system. That is, the possibility that anchoring new knowledge also benefits the patient is probably associated with optimization of the structural context. Future research should take this question further by examining how the organizational structure should be optimized for the dissemination of knowledge in healthcare professionals about pain and pain interference with sleep.

Gender differences in activity-limiting pain trajectories over a 17-year period in the Mexican Health and Aging Study

ABSTRACT

Pain increases with age, disproportionately affects women, and is a major contributor to decreased quality of life. Because pain is dynamic, trajectories are important to consider. Few studies have examined longitudinal trajectories of pain, by gender, in Mexico. We used data from 5 waves (over 2001-2018) of the Mexican Health and Aging Study, a nationally representative sample of Mexicans aged 50 years and older. Pain was categorized as self-reported frequent pain that makes it difficult to do usual activities. Latent class mixture models were used to create pain trajectories (n = 9824). The sample was majority female (56.15%), with a mean age of 61.72 years. We identified 2 pain trajectories: low-stable (81.88%) and moderate-increasing (18.12%). Women had 1.75 times the odds of being in the moderate-increasing group compared with men (95% confidence interval= 1.41, 2.17). In addition, having zero years of education was associated with higher odds of being in the moderate-increasing group, compared with having any years of education. Fair/poor self-rated health, obesity, arthritis, elevated depressive symptoms, and falls were positively associated with pain for both trajectory groups. Being married was positively associated with pain in the low-stable group. Insurance status was negatively associated with pain in the low-stable group, but positively associated with pain in the moderate-increasing group. We identified 2 trajectories of activity-limiting pain, among older Mexican adults (50+) over 17 years of follow-up. Understanding gender differences in pain trajectories in later life and the factors associated with trajectory development is crucial to improve quality of life, especially in vulnerable populations.

Relative risks of adverse events among older adults receiving opioids versus NSAIDs after hospital discharge: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although analgesics are initiated on hospital discharge in millions of adults each year, studies quantifying the risks of opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) among older adults during this transition are limited. We sought to determine the incidence and risk of post-discharge adverse events among older adults with an opioid claim in the week after hospital discharge, compared to those with NSAID claims only.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older, hospitalized in United States hospitals in 2016. We excluded beneficiaries admitted from or discharged to a facility. We derived a propensity score that included over 100 factors potentially related to the choice of analgesic, including demographics, diagnoses, surgeries, and medication coadministrations. Using 3:1 propensity matching, beneficiaries with an opioid claim in the week after hospital discharge (with or without NSAID claims) were matched to beneficiaries with an NSAID claim only. Primary outcomes included death, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visits and rehospitalization), and a composite of known adverse effects of opioids or NSAIDs (fall/fracture, delirium, nausea/vomiting, complications of slowed colonic motility, acute renal failure, and gastritis/duodenitis) within 30 days of discharge. After propensity matching, there were 13,385 beneficiaries in the opioid cohort and 4,677 in the NSAID cohort (mean age: 74 years, 57% female). Beneficiaries receiving opioids had a higher incidence of death (1.8% versus 1.1%; relative risk [RR] 1.7 [1.3 to 2.3], p < 0.001, number needed to harm [NNH] 125), healthcare utilization (19.0% versus 17.4%; RR 1.1 [1.02 to 1.2], p = 0.02, NNH 59), and any potential adverse effect (25.2% versus 21.3%; RR 1.2 [1.1 to 1.3], p < 0.001, NNH 26), compared to those with an NSAID claim only. Specifically, they had higher relative risk of fall/fracture (4.5% versus 3.4%; RR 1.3 [1.1 to 1.6], p = 0.002), nausea/vomiting (9.2% versus 7.3%; RR 1.3 [1.1 to 1.4], p < 0.001), and slowed colonic motility (8.0% versus 6.2%; RR 1.3 [1.1 to 1.4], p < 0.001). Risks of delirium, acute renal failure, and gastritis/duodenitis did not differ between groups. The main limitation of our study is the observational nature of the data and possibility of residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults filling an opioid prescription in the week after hospital discharge were at higher risk for mortality and other post-discharge adverse outcomes compared to those filling an NSAID prescription only.

Prevalence of frailty and pain in hospitalised adult patients in an acute hospital: a protocol for a point prevalence observational study

INTRODUCTION

Frailty and pain are associated with adverse patient clinical outcomes and healthcare system costs. Frailty and pain can interact, such that symptoms of frailty can make pain assessment difficult and pain can exacerbate the progression of frailty. The prevalence of frailty and pain and their concurrence in hospital settings are not well understood, and patients with cognitive impairment are often excluded from pain prevalence studies due to difficulties assessing their pain. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of frailty and pain in adult inpatients, including those with cognitive impairment, in an acute care private metropolitan hospital in Western Australia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, observational, single-day point prevalence, cross-sectional study of frailty and pain intensity of all inpatients (excluding day surgery and critical care units) will be undertaken. Frailty will be assessed using the modified Reported Edmonton Frail Scale. Current pain intensity will be assessed using the PainChek smart-device application enabling pain assessment in people unable to report pain due to cognitive impairment. Participants will also provide a numerical rating of the intensity of current pain and the worst pain experienced in the previous 24 hours. Demographic and clinical information will be collected from patient files. The overall response rate of the survey will be reported, as well as the percentage prevalence of frailty and of pain in the sample (separately for PainChek scores and numerical ratings). Additional statistical modelling will be conducted comparing frailty scores with pain scores, adjusting for covariates including age, gender, ward type and reason for admission.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by Ramsay Health Care Human Research Ethics Committee WA/SA (reference: 2038) and Edith Cowan University Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: 2020-02008-SAUNDERS). Findings will be widely disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000904976.

Pain prevalence in hospitalized patients at a tertiary academic medical center: Exploring severe persistent pain

Objective

The pain prevalence of inpatients is not a well-studied medical issue in Asia. We have aimed to evaluate pain prevalence and characterize those patients who have suffered from severe, persistent pain.

Methods

We investigated pain prevalence using a quota sampling from 19 general wards during the year 2018. Using a structured questionnaire, eight interviewers visited patients at an age ≥ 20 years, and who had been staying in general wards for ≥ 3 days. Those patients were excluded if they were unable to respond to the interview questions. If they reported pain during hospitalization, the maximum pain level and the duration of pain suffered in the past 24 hours were assessed. Care-related pain was also surveyed.

Results

A total of 1,034 patients (M/F, 537/497) completed the survey. Amongst them, 719 patients (69.5%) experienced pain, with moderate and severe pain levels being 27.3% and 43%, respectively. Surgery was considered as it related to pain, including significantly severe pain. The top 3 care-related pain causes were needle pain, wound dressing, and change in position/chest percussion. Change in position/chest percussion and rehabilitation were associated with severe, persistent pain.

Conclusions

Pain is common in approximately 70% of inpatients, with surgery being associated with severe pain. Mobilization and rehabilitation may lead to severe, persistent pain. The periodic study of pain prevalence is essential in order to provide precise pain management.

The Effect of Caregiver-Facilitated Pain Management Interventions in Hospitalized Patients on Patient, Caregiver, Provider, and Health System Outcomes: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Alternative pain management interventions involving caregivers may be valuable adjuncts to conventional pain management interventions.

OBJECTIVES

Use systematic review methodology to examine caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions in a hospital setting and whether they improve patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases from inception to April 2020. Original research on caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions in hospitalized settings (i.e., any age) were included and categorized into three caregiver engagement strategies: inform (e.g., pain education), activate (e.g., prompt caregiver action), and collaborate (encourage caregiver's interaction with providers).

RESULTS

Of 61 included studies, most investigated premature (n = 27 of 61; 44.3%) and full-term neonates (n = 19 of 61; 31.1%). Interventions were classified as activate (n = 46 of 61; 75.4%), inform-activate-collaborate (n = 6 of 61; 9.8%), inform-activate (n = 5 of 61; 8.2%), activate-collaborate (n = 3 of 61; 4.9%), or inform (n = 1 of 61; 1.6%) caregiver engagement strategies. Interventions that included an activate engagement strategy improved pain outcomes in adults (18-64 years) (e.g., self-reported pain, n = 4 of 5; 80%) and neonates (e.g., crying, n = 32 of 41; 73.0%) but not children or older adults (65 years and older). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., pain knowledge) were improved by inform-activate engagement strategies (n = 3 of 3). Interventions did not improve provider (e.g., satisfaction) or health system (e.g., hospital length of stay) outcomes. Most studies were of low (n = 36 of 61; 59.0%) risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions using an activate engagement strategy may be effective in reducing pain of hospitalized neonates. Caregiver-facilitated pain management interventions improved pain outcomes in most adult studies; however, the number of studies of adults is small warranting caution pending further studies.

An Analysis of Italian Nurses' Approach to Patients' Pain: A Nationwide Online Survey

Healthcare providers play a fundamental role in evaluating pain. Several issues about how nurses are educated remain unsolved. The aim of our study was to address how Italian nurses manage patients suffering from pain in daily practice. A cross-sectional survey was administered among Italian registered nurses. Data were collected using a 34-item questionnaire that had been previously validated during a pilot study. The lowest level of participation/education/information events was observed in the South (p=0.0001). A significant difference among the four areas was found in the department affiliation of responders (p=0.0001). Pain assessment at patients' admission was most frequent in the Northeast (32.9%), whereas the lowest frequency was found in the South (15.1%) (p=0.0001). The prevalence of nurses' knowledge of pain scales and their distribution in usual applications was similar in the Northwest and -east, and Central Italy, but lower in the South (p=0.0001). This study underlines the need for change in the clinical approach to pain treatment in healthcare. Pain assessment is a fundamental step for preparing individualized therapeutic plans, and nurses play a crucial role in improving the quality of life of suffering patients.

Safe Opioid Prescribing for Acute Noncancer Pain in Hospitalized Adults: A Systematic Review of Existing Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Pain is common among hospitalized patients. Inpatient prescribing of opioids is not without risk. Acute pain management guidelines could inform safe prescribing of opioids in the hospital and limit associated unintended consequences.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality and content of existing guidelines for acute, noncancer pain management.

DATA SOURCES

The National Guideline Clearinghouse, MEDLINE via PubMed, websites of relevant specialty societies and other organizations, and selected international search engines.

STUDY SELECTION

Guidelines published between January 2010 and August 2017 addressing acute, noncancer pain management among adults were considered. Guidelines that focused on chronic pain, specific diseases, and the nonhospital setting were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four guidelines met the selection criteria. Most recommendations were based on expert consensus. The guidelines recommended restricting opioids to severe pain or pain that has not responded to nonopioid therapy, using the lowest effective dose of short-acting opioids for the shortest duration possible, and co-prescribing opioids with nonopioid analgesics. The guidelines generally recommended checking the prescription drug monitoring program when prescribing opioids, developing goals for patient recovery, and educating patients regarding the risks and side effects of opioid therapy. Additional recommendations included using an opioid dose conversion guide, avoidance of co-administration of parenteral and oral opioids, and using caution when co-prescribing opioids with other central nervous system depressants.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines, based largely on expert opinion, recommend judicious prescribing of opioids for severe, acute pain. Future work should assess the implications of these recommendations on hospital-based pain management.

Acute Postoperative Pain in Trauma Patients - The Fifth Vital Sign

AIM

To determine average pain intensity perceived by trauma patients at hospital admission, lowest and highest pain intensity during their hospitalisation and their satisfaction with provided pain treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The research included 114 operated patients at the Clinical Department of Trauma Surgery. We used the standard Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for a clinical measure of pain.

RESULTS

The average pain intensity at hospital admission was NRS median 7 (range 4-10), the severest perceived rate of pain during hospitalisation was NRS median 5 (range 4-7). Ninety-four percent of our respondents were satisfied with provided pain treatment. Thirty-two percent of patients were not asked to assess their pain during their hospitalisation, and 40.4% of patients assessed their pain occasionally.

CONCLUSION

Female patients, as well as patients admitted to the emergency department, reported higher NRS scores. Those respondents who perceived severe pain answered more often that medical staff didn't ask them to assess their pain on any occasion. Good communication between medical staff and patients, together with adequate assessment and evaluation of acute pain are of great importance in its treatment.

Pain and pain management in hospitalized patients before and after an intervention

Background and aim

Studies have shown that pain is common among hospitalized patients and that there is a lack of compliance with pain management guidelines. Improving pain management does not only involve developing new drugs or technology; even more important is an effective organisation that utilises existing expertise. The aim of this study was to investigate whether pain in hospitalized patients can be reduced by implementing evidence-based pain management guidelines, providing education for staff and an organisation that includes pain responsibility nurses.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out between 2009 and 2010 at two hospitals in southwest Sweden, comprising a baseline survey followed by an intervention. The study involved 306 patients, who answered questions about pain intensity at rest and while moving, disturbed sleep due to pain and whether they had used a pain rating scale while in hospital. Medical records were scrutinised for analgesic prescriptions. An intervention then took place, involving implementation of evidence-based guidelines, staff education and the introduction of pain responsibility nurses. A follow-up survey was carried out in 2012, in which 293 patients answered the same questions and their medical records were also reviewed. The baseline results were then compared with those of the follow-up survey.

Results

When compared with the baseline survey, the follow-up survey revealed significant differences in the use of validated pain rating instruments as well as the prescription of more appropriate analgesics. Prescription of paracetamol increased significantly in the follow-up survey; 56% of the patients were prescribed paracetamol on a regular basis, compared with 42% at baseline. There was also a significant increase in the use of strong opioids, from 38% at baseline to 55% at follow-up. Prescriptions of weak opioids decreased from 16% at baseline to 4% at follow-up. No significant differences were observed in patient pain levels in the follow-up survey. At baseline, 29% of the patients reported moderate to severe pain at rest (NRS 4–10) and at follow-up that figure was 24% (NRS 4–10). In both surveys, 41% reported moderate to severe pain (NRS 5–10) during movement. Thirty-nine percent reported disturbed sleep at night at both baseline and follow-up.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that evidence-based guidelines made accessible to all staff as a pocket size booklet and on the intranet, in combination with staff education, pain responsibility nurses who informed other staff on their own wards, improved the prescription of analgesics in the hospitals studied. In order to achieve a noticeable effect for patients, i.e., reduced pain levels, an intervention containing more components than those employed in the present study is required.

Implications

Nurses and physicians need greater knowledge about the importance of pain rating. A vital part of pain management at hospitals is continuous evaluation of treatment outcomes to prevent severe pain and disturbed sleep. The complexity of pain and pain management requires commitment, time and knowledge on the part of healthcare staff. Multi-professional pain teams that support ward staff in pain management are necessary in order to reduce suffering and unnecessary pain in hospitalized patients.

Clinical benefits, referral practice and cost implications of an in-hospital pain service: results of a service evaluation in a London teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

In-hospital pain services (IPS) are commonplace, but evidence of efficacy is inadequate, and patients' pain management in any hospital ward remains problematic. This service evaluation aimed to measure the effect of a contemporary IPS, its appropriate use and cost-efficacy.

METHODS

Records of 249 adults reviewed by the IPS in an inner London Teaching Hospital over an 8-month period were analysed for demographic data, interventions, workload and change in pain intensity measured by numerical rating scale (NRS). Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate differences between initial and final NRS. Spearman's rank correlation analysis was used to create a correlation matrix to evaluate associations between all identified independent variables with the change in NRS. All strongly correlated variables (ρ > 0.5) were subsequently included in a binary logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of pain resolution greater than 50% NRS and improvement rather than deterioration or no change in NRS. Finally, referral practice and cost of inappropriate referrals were estimated. Referrals were thought to be inappropriate when pain was not optimised by the referring team; they were identified using a set algorithm.

RESULTS

Initial median NRS and final median NRS were significantly different when a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to the whole cohort; Z = -5.5 (p = 0.000). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the 'mild' pain group; z = -1.1 (p = 0.253). Regression analysis showed that for every unit increase in initial NRS, there was a 62% chance of general and a 33% chance of >50% improvement in final NRS. An estimated annual cost-saving potential of £1546 to £4558 was found in inappropriate referrals and patients experiencing no benefit from the service.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that patients with moderate to severe pain benefit most from IPS input. Also pain management resources are often distributed inefficiently. Future research is required to develop algorithms for easy identification of potential treatment responders.

Encountering a Neglected Area of a Healthcare System: A Decade of Improvement in Cancer Pain Clinical Practice in Iran

Background

With the increase in the prevalence of cancer, cancer-related issues also deserve more attention especially in developing countries where there is already limited access to high-quality healthcare. Cancer-related pain, the most common and the most annoying one, is not only a symptom but also an important subspecialty and its management is still challenging.

Objectives

To assess the level of pain and cancer pain knowledge in Iran in comparison with the whole world.

Materials and Method

A search of the literature including papers published in PubMed before March 2016 was carried out.

Results

There have been an increasing number of publications on pain since 1842 and a growing number of publications on cancer pain since 1929. There has also been remarkable growth in our understanding of cancer pain, particularly since 2010. More than one-third of studies on pain and cancer-related pain were published after 2010.

Conclusion

There is a need to be more inventive with the management of cancer-related issues, especially pain in developing countries, to maximize the quality and quantity of healthcare delivery to cancer-stricken patients. It seems that non-governmental organizations like MAHAK can play a significant role in this goal.

How Do Hospital Palliative Care Teams Use the WHO Guidelines to Manage Unrelieved Cancer Pain? A 1-Year, Multicenter Audit in Japan

It has been reported that pain relief for patients with cancer is suboptimal in Japan. This has been mainly attributed to inadequate dissemination of the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for cancer pain management. To better understand this problem, we reviewed how 6 hospital palliative care teams (HPCTs) used the WHO guidelines for unrelieved pain in a 1-year audit that included 534 patients. The HPCT interventions were classified according to the contents of the WHO guidelines. In our study, HPCT interventions involved opioid prescriptions in >80% of referred patients, and “For the Individual” and “Attention to Detail” were the 2 most important principles. Our study indicates which parts of the WHO guidelines should be most heavily emphasized, when disseminating them in Japan.

Medical Evidence Influence on Inpatients and Nurses Pain Ratings Agreement

Biased pain evaluation due to automated heuristics driven by symptom uncertainty may undermine pain treatment; medical evidence moderators are thought to play a role in such circumstances. We explored, in this cross-sectional survey, the effect of such moderators (e.g., nurse awareness of patients' pain experience and treatment) on the agreement between n = 862 inpatients' self-reported pain and n = 115 nurses' pain ratings using a numerical rating scale. We assessed the mean of absolute difference, agreement (κ-statistics), and correlation (Spearman rank) of inpatients and nurses' pain ratings and analyzed congruence categories' (CCs: underestimation, congruence, and overestimation) proportions and dependence upon pain categories for each medical evidence moderator (χ² analysis). Pain ratings agreement and correlation were limited; the CCs proportions were further modulated by the studied moderators. Medical evidence promoted in nurses overestimation of low and underestimation of high inpatients' self-reported pain. Knowledge of the negative influence of automated heuristics driven by symptoms uncertainty and medical-evidence moderators on pain evaluation may render pain assessment more accurate.

Using a New Measurement to Evaluate Pain Relief Among Cancer Inpatients with Clinically Significant Pain Based on a Nursing Information System: A Three-Year Hospital-Based Study

OBJECTIVE

Developing a new measurement index is the first step in evaluating pain relief outcomes. Although the percentage difference in pain intensity (%PID) is the most popular indicator, this indicator does not take into account the goal of pain relief. Therefore, the aims of this study were to develop a pain relief index (PRI) for outcome evaluation and to examine the index using demographic characteristics of cancer inpatients with clinically significant pain.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A national hospital.

SUBJECTS

All cancer inpatients.

METHODS

Pain intensity was assessed using a numerical rating scale, a faces pain scale or the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) Behavioral Tool. Using a nursing information system, a pain score database containing data from 2011 through 2013 was analyzed.

RESULTS

Cancer patients representing 93,812 hospitalizations were considered in this study. We focused on cancer patients for whom the worst pain intensity (WPI) was ≥ 4 points. PRI values of -62.02% to -72.55% were observed in the WPI ≥ 7 and 4 ≤ WPI ≤ 6 groups. Significant (P < 0.05) effects on PRI values were observed among patients who were > 65 years old, those who were admitted to the medicine or gynecology and those who had a hospital stay > 30 days.

CONCLUSION

This hospital-based study demonstrated that the PRI is an effective and valid measure for evaluating outcome data using an electronic nursing information system. We will further define the meaningful range of percentage difference in PRI from various perspectives.

Trends in Clinically Significant Pain Prevalence Among Hospitalized Cancer Patients at an Academic Hospital in Taiwan: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Clinically significant pain (CSP) is one of the most common complaints among cancer patients during repeated hospitalizations, and the prevalence ranges from 24% to 86%. This study aimed to characterize the trends in CSP among cancer patients and examine the differences in the prevalence of CSP across repeated hospitalizations. A hospital-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted at an academic hospital. Patient-reported pain intensity was assessed and recorded in a nursing information system. We examined the differences in the prevalence of worst pain intensity (WPI) and last evaluated pain intensity (LPI) of ≥ 4 or ≥ 7 points among cancer inpatients from the 1st to the 18th hospitalization. Linear mixed models were used to determine the significant difference in the WPI and LPI (≥ 4 or ≥ 7 points) at each hospitalization. We examined 88,133 pain scores from the 1st to the 18th hospitalization among cancer patients. The prevalence of the 4 CSP types showed a trend toward a reduction from the 1st to the 18th hospitalization. There was a robust reduction in the CSP prevalence from the 1st to the 5th hospitalization, except in the case of LPI ≥ 7 points. The prevalence of a WPI ≥ 4 points was significantly higher (0.240-fold increase) during the 1st hospitalization than during the 5th hospitalization. For the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hospitalizations, there was a significantly higher prevalence of a WPI ≥ 4 points compared with the 5th hospitalization. We also observed significant reductions in the prevalence of a WPI ≥ 7 points during the 1st to the 4th hospitalizations, an LPI ≥ 4 points during the 1st to the 3rd hospitalizations, and an LPI ≥ 7 points during the 1st to the 2nd hospitalization. Although the prevalence of the 4 CSP types decreased gradually, it is impossible to state the causative factors on the basis of this observational and descriptive study. The next step will examine the factors that determine the CSP prevalence among cancer patients. However, based on these positive findings, we can provide feedback to nurses, physicians, and pharmacists to empower them to be more committed to pain management.

Care-related pain in hospitalized patients: severity and patient perception of management

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients commonly undergo painful procedures, but little is known about care-related pain (CRP) in the overall population of inpatients. We conducted a cross-sectional 1-day survey to assess the prevalence and characteristics of CRP and its management in all units of a university hospital in Paris and determined the factors linked to severe CRP.

METHODS

All patients who were able to communicate and were hospitalized for at least 24 h but not in a day-care or neonatal unit were included.

RESULTS

From 938 patients who completed the questionnaire, 554 patients reported pain within the previous 24 h, for a 59% prevalence of pain, and 540 (58%) had experienced CRP in the previous 15 days (51% males; mean [SD] age 54 [18] years). Of 907 procedures, 330 (37%) resulted in severe pain. The most-often reported painful procedures were vascular punctures and patient mobilization. Severe CRP was associated with long hospitalization; non-vascular invasive punctures, catheterization, mobilization or radiological examination; or pain during the previous 24 h due to surgery or treatment. Only half of the patients declared that they had received information regarding the painful procedure. Treatment for pain was proposed and delivered in less than one quarter of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results of a survey of pain management in hospitalized patients relate to a wide variety of medical conditions and procedures. Health-care workers should be more systematic in managing CRP, and attention should be paid to patients at greatest risk of severe CRP.

Assessing pain objectively: the use of physiological markers

Pain diagnosis and management would benefit from the development of objective markers of nociception and pain. Current research addressing this issue has focused on five main strategies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. These encompass: (i) monitoring changes in the autonomic nervous system; (ii) biopotentials; (iii) neuroimaging; (iv) biological (bio-) markers; and (v) composite algorithms. Although each strategy has shown areas of promise, there are currently no validated objective markers of nociception or pain that can be recommended for clinical use. This article introduces the most important developments in the field and highlights shortcomings, with the aim of allowing the reader to make informed decisions about what trends to watch in the future.

Care related pain in rehabilitation after orthopedic trauma: An exploratory study with qualitative data

OBJECTIVE

Care related pain (CRP) is generally under-estimated and rarely studied in rehabilitation as well as in general medecine. Beliefs about pain influence psychological distress, adjustment to pain and physical disability. In this sense, perceptions of CRP could limit recovery. This exploratory study aims to understand patients' and caregivers' subjective perceptions and beliefs about CRP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Questionnaires about CRP were submitted to members of the interdisciplinary team of a rehabilitation hospital and to patients with musculoskeletal complaints (cross-sectional design). Twenty patients were also individually interviewed (qualitative data). Four topics were addressed: frequency of CRP, situations and procedures causing CRP, beliefs about CRP and means used to deal with CRP.

RESULTS

Seventy-five caregivers and 50 patients replied to the questionnaire. CRP is a very common experience in rehabilitation and it is recognized by both groups. Generally, the situations causing CRP reflect the specificity of rehabilitation (mobilization…) and are similarly perceived by patients and caregivers, with patients considering them as more painful. Beliefs about CRP are clearly different from those usually associated with pain. Both groups point out the utilitarian and the inevitable character of CRP. They differ on that, that patients had a more positive view about CRP. They associate it more often with progress and see it as acceptable at least until a certain limit. They are also able to perceive the richness of means used by physiotherapists to help them coping with CRP.

CONCLUSION

Our data may suggest new keys to motivate patient to be active in rehabilitation for example in choosing carefully arguments or words which may fit theirs' beliefs about CRP, or in using various means to manage CRP. Promoting the use of relational competences with chronic pain patients and of a patient-centred approach may also be a concern in training caregivers.

The pain experience of inpatients in a teaching hospital: revisiting a strategic priority

For hospital executives and clinicians to improve pain management, organizations must examine the current pain experience of in-patients beyond simply measuring patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to quantify the prevalence of pain among adult in-patients and the degree of interference pain had on daily activities. A descriptive, cross-sectional study was undertaken in a 530 bed tertiary care, teaching hospital in central Canada. A convenience sample (N = 88) of adult medical-surgical patients completed the Short Form-Brief Pain Inventory survey. Pain prevalence was 70.4%. The mean pain severity score was 3.76 (standard deviation, SD = 2.88) and mean pain interference score on daily activities was 4.56 (SD = 3.93). The most frequently identified site of pain was the lower extremities (n = 15, 28%). Women had higher mean scores on pain "right now" compared to men (p < 0.05). The sample majority (n = 81) indicated hospital staff asked about the presence of pain. Seventy-nine percent (n = 57) reported hospital staff "always" did everything they could to help manage pain. Eighty-four percent (n = 61) selected "always" or "usually" to describe their ability to be involved in deciding pain treatments. The mean pain relief score from treatments was 61% (SD = 34.79). Significant positive correlations were found between pain intensity ratings and pain interference on all daily activities (p < 0.001). Pain prevalence remains high with a significant relationship between pain and activities of daily living. The study provides baseline data to direct future initiatives at improving pain management.

Sleep quality, BDNF genotype and gene expression in individuals with chronic abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

Sleep quality and genetics may contribute to the etiology of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Individuals with impaired sleep often have a number of associated symptoms including chronic abdominal pain (CAP). The current study examined the interactions of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) genotype with sleep quality in persons with CAP and healthy controls. In addition, associations among sleep quality, BDNF genotype, and gene expression were explored in the participants.

METHODS

Data were collected on 59 participants (46% male, 61% White, 26.9 ± 6.6 years; CAP (n=19) and healthy controls (n=40)). Participants with CAP reported poorer sleep quality compared to healthy controls. BDNF genotype, categorized as Val/Val homozygotes versus the Met carriers.

RESULTS

Microarray analysis found twenty-four differentially expressed genes by a two-fold magnitude in participants with poor sleep quality compared to good sleep quality, and seven differentially expressed genes comparing CAP to healthy control. Three specific genes in the pain group overlap with sleep quality, including insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), spermatogenesis associated serine-rich 2-like (SPATS2L), and immunoglobulin heavy constant gamma 1 or mu (IGHG1/// IGHM). BDNF was shown to have an interaction effect with GI and sleep symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants with CAP reported poor sleep quality compared to healthy controls. The role of the BDNF Met allele on differential gene expression was not distinct as main factor, but impacted interactions with sleep quality and CAP. Down-regulation of IGF1, SPATS2L, and IGHG1 expression may be related to the etiology of poor sleep quality and CAP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov # NCT00824941.

Quality Assessment of Acute Inpatient Pain Management in an Academic Health Center

The quality of acute inpatient pain management remains suboptimal and poorly understood. In this retrospective study, we analyze acute pain management practice in a large academic health center using several quality indicators. Not surprisingly, despite high rate of pain assessment, many patients still have frequent, prolonged, and unrelieved severe pain episodes. Upon examination of naloxone administration, we identify potential inappropriate opioid prescription practices such as the use of wrong opioids in hepatic and renal failure and simultaneous use of multiple short-acting opioids. Most importantly, we find that chronic opioid users appear to suffer the most in terms of undertreatment of pain as well as opioid overdose, highlighting the urgent need to target this underserved population of patients.

Hospitalized children continue to report undertreated and preventable pain

BACKGROUND

Published reports of substantial rates of moderate to severe pediatric inpatient pain tend to overlook lower-intensity pain that may be clinically significant.

OBJECTIVE

To document the prevalence of clinically significant pain in pediatric inpatients by considering the pain threshold at which each child desires intervention, and to assess sources of pain, pain assessment and intervention, and relationships among demographic and medical variables to reported pain.

METHODS

Inpatients or their parents on four hospital units during four nonconsecutive days were eligible for inclusion. Interviews (76 parents; 31&nbsp;patients) captured experiences of 107 inpatients (three weeks to 18&nbsp;years of age) including current, worst and usual pain, pain treatment thresholds, sources of pain and help received during the previous 24 h. A chart review provided data regarding demographic and medical variables, and pain assessment and management.

RESULTS

In total, 94% of patients experienced pain. The prevalence of clinically significant pain was 8% (current), 62% (worst) and 24% (usual). Current and worst pain was primarily procedural, and usual pain was primarily disease related. On average, patients had 4.03 documented pain assessments over 24 h. Caregiver responses (eg, reassurance) and nonpharmacological interventions were frequently reported (>90%) but infrequently documented (<50%); 66% of patients received pharmacological interventions. Younger patients received fewer pain assessments and opioids. Patients with clinically significant usual pain were more likely to have undergone surgery, and receive more pain assessments and interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

While recent studies suggest reduced pain in pediatric inpatients, the present findings reveal a continued high frequency of undertreated pain. High rates of procedural pain are preventable and should be targeted given the underutilization of pain management strategies.

[Prevalence of pain in Andalusian public hospitals]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of pain in medical and surgical patients admitted to reference hospitals in Andalusia, as well as their features and the most population groups most affected.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional, multicenter epidemiological study was conducted simultaneously on the population admitted to 5 hospitals. Using a structured questionnaire the demographics, hospital area, presence of pain at the time of the interview, and pre- and post-variables related to the intensity of pain and its treatment at 24h were investigated. All patients over 18 years old were included, except those patients with difficulty in understanding the questionnaire, and psychiatric and obstetric patients. Pain intensity was assessed by simple verbal scale.

RESULTS

Of the 1,236 patients included, 54.2% were male, with 51.1% of patients aged 65 years, and 69.17% were admitted to medical areas. Pain was observed in 52.9% of patients admitted to the surgical area compared to 29.4% in the medical area. Of the 19.4% who reported having had pain in the last 24h prior to the questionnaire, 57.7% of them were surgical patients and 32% were medical, P<.005), and of the 42.2% who had pain at the time of study, 52.7% were female. The incidence of pain on movement was higher than that observed at rest. The mean resting pain was 1.8 and 1.4 for the surgical and medical patients, respectively (P<.01). The mean pain on movement was 2.2 and 1.6 for the surgical and medical patients, respectively (P<.01). More than one quarter (25.8%) of surgical patients and 16.5% of medical patients had difficulty sleeping (P<.005). Some 12.8% of all patients had no analgesic regimen, and 66.2% and 85.6% of surgical and medical patients, respectively, did not request analgesics (P<.005). The main drugs were prescribed paracetamol analgesic and metamizole, and in 54.4% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the presence of pain in patients admitted to our study population is high and it is essential to encourage an improvement in the pain management of both acute and chronic pain processes.

The Barriers to High-Quality Inpatient Pain Management: A Qualitative Study

The current literature suggests deficiencies in the quality of acute pain management among general medical inpatients. The aim of this qualitative study is to identify potential barriers to high-quality acute pain management among general medical inpatients at an urban academic medical center during a 2-year period. Data are collected using retrospective chart reviews, survey questionnaires, and semistructured, open-ended interviews of 40 general medical inpatients who have experienced pain during their hospitalization. Our results confirm high prevalence and disabling impacts of pain and significant patient- and provider-related barriers to high-quality acute pain management. We also identify unique system-related barriers such as time delay and pain management culture. Efforts to improve the pain management experience of general medical inpatients will need to address all these barriers.

Pain prevalence and management in an internal medicine setting in Italy

Background. Since data on pain evaluation and management in patients admitted to internal medicine wards (IMWs) are limited, we aimed to evaluate these aspects in a cohort of internistic patients. Methods. We considered all patients consecutively admitted from June to December 2011 to our unit. Age, gender, and length-of-hospital-stay (LOS) were recorded. Comorbidities were arbitrarily defined, and pain severity was evaluated by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) on admission and discharge. Results. The final sample consisted of 526 patients (mean age 74 ± 14 years; 308 women). Significant pain (NRS ≥ 3) was detected in 63% of cases, and severe (NRS ≥ 7) in 7.6%. Pain was successfully treated, and NRS decreased from 4.65 ± 2.05 to 0.89 ± 1.3 (P < 0.001). Compared with subjects with NRS < 3, those with significant pain were older (75.5 ± 13.9 versus 72.9 ± 14.5 years, P = 0.038), and had a higher LOS (7.9 ± 6.1 versus 7.3 ± 6.8, P = 0.048). Significant pain was independently associated with age (OR 0.984, P = 0.018), cancer (OR 3.347, P < 0.001), musculoskeletal disease (OR 3.054, P < 0.0001), biliary disease (OR 3.100, P < 0.01), and bowel disease (OR 3.100, P < 0.003). Conclusion. In an internal medicine setting, multiple diseases represent significant cause of pain. Prompt pain evaluation and management should be performed as soon as possible, in order to avoid patients' suffering and reduce the need of hospital stay.

Quality pain management in the hospital setting from the patient's perspective

BACKGROUND

Pain management is a crucial issue for patients, and patients' perception of care is an important quality outcome criterion for health care institutions. Pain remains a common problem in hospitals, with subsequent deleterious effects on well-being.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the epidemiology of pain (frequency, severity, and interference), patient participation in pain treatment decisions, and patient satisfaction with care in a hospital setting.

METHODS

A point-prevalence study was conducted. Data were collected with the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (Icelandic version). Participants (n = 308) were ≥ 18 years old, alert, and hospitalized for ≥ 24 hours.

RESULTS

The response rate was 73%. The mean age of participants was 67.5 (SD = 17.4; range 18 to 100) years, and 49% were men. Pain prevalence in the past 24 hours was 83%, mean worst pain severity was 4.6 (SD = 3.1), and 35% experienced severe pain (≥ 7 on 0 to 10 scale). Moderate to severe interference with activities and sleep was experienced by 36% and 29% of patients respectively. Patient participation in decision making was weakly associated with spending less time in severe pain and better pain relief. Patient satisfaction was related to spending less time in severe pain, better pain relief, and lower pain severity (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain was both prevalent and severe in the hospital, but patient participation in decision making was related to better outcomes. Optimal pain management, with emphasis on patient participation in decision making, should be encouraged in an effort to improve the quality of care in hospitals.

The clinical psychologist and the management of inpatient pain: a small case series

Recent research has confirmed that between 25% and 33% of all hospitalized patients experience unacceptable levels of pain. Studies further indicate that this reduces patient satisfaction levels, lengthens hospital stays, and increases cost. Hospitals are aiming to discharge patients earlier, and this can interfere with adequate pain management. Therefore, the pain service at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital has adapted to this changing model of care. An increasing body of evidence demonstrates that psychological factors are key components of patients' pain experiences in both acute and chronic pain. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a clinical psychologist should be involved in inpatient pain management. This small study discusses three cases that highlight how patient care could be improved by including a clinical psychologist as part of the inpatient pain team. Two cases particularly highlight the active role of the psychologist in the diagnosis and management of common conditions such as fear and anxiety, along with other psychiatric comorbidities. The management therefore employed an eclectic approach adapted from chronic pain and comprising of behavioral, cognitive behavioral, and dialectical behavioral therapeutic techniques blended with brief counseling. The third case exemplifies the importance of nurse-patient interactions and the quality of nurse-patient relationships on patient outcomes. Here, the psychologist helped to optimize communication and to resolve a difficult and potentially risk-laden situation. This small case series discusses the benefits derived from the involvement of a clinical psychologist in the management of inpatient pain, and therefore illustrates the need for novel initiatives for inpatient pain services. However, future research is warranted to validate this approach.

Pain management at inpatient wards of a university hospital

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This is an exploratory, descriptive and transversal study aiming to determine the prevalence, characterization, location, and measurement and discuss pharmacological analgesic measures for acute pain management in five inpatient wards of a university hospital.

METHOD

We enrolled 856 subjects in the study, of whom 272 were in pain at the time. Information related to pain was obtained using a bedside structured interview. Numeric pain scale and body diagram were used.

RESULTS

Analgesia was assessed through medical records. The overall prevalence of pain was 31.8%, with severe pain in 44.2% and mean of 6.6 on numeric pain scale. The main reason was trauma and the most common site the abdomen. The most widely used analgesic was dipyrone (76.1%) with/without combination. Strong opioid was prescribed to 4.4%. For 27.5% there was no improvement.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that pain is highly prevalent, poorly evaluated, undertreated, with inappropriate use of analgesics.

Determinants of patient satisfaction regarding pain care

BACKGROUND

The management of pain in hospitalized patients remains a major public hospital priority. It has been the object of three French national programs since 1999. The purpose of this study was to reassess pain prevalence, pain intensity and patient perception of its management ten years after the first national program and to determine the factors related to the patient satisfaction with efforts to decrease pain intensity.

METHODS

A 1-day cross-sectional survey in a university hospital.

RESULTS

Pain prevalence was 59%. Pain intensity varied according to the medical department with lower intensity in surgery and obstetrics than medicine departments. Eighty-one percent of patients were satisfied with their pain management. Patient satisfaction was higher when doctors and nurses were heavily involved in the process of pain relief (OR=6.6; 95% CI 3.8, 11.4), and when their pain had decreased (OR=2.9; 1.7, 5.0). The magnitude of decrease in pain were higher when the medical team was involved (OR=1.9; 95% IC 1.1, 3.3) and pain intensity was measured (OR=1.6; 1.0, 2.4). Perceptions of doctor and nurse involvement in the patient's care was higher when pain intensity was measured (OR=6.0; 3.4, 10.5), an immediate treatment offered (OR=3.5; 2.0, 6.2), encouragement to ask for an analgesic was provided (OR=2.0; 1.1, 3.5) and for patients with acute pain (OR=2.2; 1.0, 4.7).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies the factors related to patient satisfaction with pain management and the magnitude of the decrease in pain which should allow further efforts to improve the management of pain and reduce its intensity in hospital inpatients.

Assessing pain in hospital in-patients: a cross-sectional study in Tuscany, Italy

Guidelines Towards a Pain-Free Hospital, published in 2001 in Italy, determined an increasing spread of No-Pain Hospital Committees across the country and supported a more effective pain control in hospital. However, few hospitals adopted such protocols. To date, a thorough investigation on quality of pain management documentation is lacking. The present survey aimed to evaluate the quality of pain management documentation reported in medical and hospital discharge records. The study reviewed records of 2,459 patients discharged every Wednesday of November 2006 in 29 Tuscany hospitals. Among 2,459 patients, 51.5 % were males. Patients were aged between 0 and 90 years or above and were mostly (24.93 %) between 70 and 79 years; most of them (47.1 %) were hospitalized in Medicine ward. At hospital admission, less than half of examined records (40.3 %) reported pain-related items, and only 8.1 % reported how it was treated. During hospitalization, 39.6 % of the records reported the use of scales for measuring pain intensity and 49.7 % reported the pharmacological therapy. The present study highlights the lack of an exhaustive documentation of pain recording and management in the hospital setting. Therefore, healthcare providers should pay close attention to this relevant issue, and the quality of such documentation should be constantly monitored.

Pediatric pain: prevalence, assessment, and management in a teaching hospital

The goal of this study was to examine the prevalence, assessment and management of pediatric pain in a public teaching hospital. The study sample consisted of 121 inpatients (70 infants, 36 children, and 15 adolescents), their families, 40 physicians, and 43 nurses. All participants were interviewed except infants and children who could not communicate due to their clinical status. The interview included open-ended questions concerning the inpatients' pain symptoms during the 24 h preceding data collection, as well as pain assessment and pharmacological/non-pharmacological management of pain. The data were obtained from 100% of the eligible inpatients. Thirty-four children/adolescents (28%) answered the questionnaire and for the other 72% (unable to communicate), the family/health professional caregivers reported pain. Among these 34 persons, 20 children/adolescents reported pain, 68% of whom reported that they received pharmacological intervention for pain relief. Eighty-two family caregivers were available on the day of data collection. Of these, 40 family caregivers (49%) had observed their child's pain response. In addition, 74% reported that the inpatients received pharmacological management. Physicians reported that only 38% of the inpatients exhibited pain signs, which were predominantly acute pain detected during clinical procedures. They reported that 66% of patients received pharmacological intervention. The nurses reported pain signs in 50% of the inpatients, which were detected during clinical procedures. The nurses reported that pain was managed in 78% of inpatients by using pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological interventions. The findings provide evidence of the high prevalence of pain in pediatric inpatients and the under-recognition of pain by health professionals.

Pain prevalence, intensity, assessment and management in a hospitalized pediatric population

New research, regulatory guidelines, and practice initiatives have improved pain management in infants, children, and adolescents, but obstacles remain. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence and demographics of pain, as well as pain management practice patterns in hospitalized children in a tertiary-care university hospital. We prospectively collected data including patient demographics, presence/absence and location of pain, pain intensity, pain assessment documentation, analgesic use, side effects of analgesic therapy, and patient/family satisfaction. Two hundred male (58%) and female, medical and surgical (61%) patients, averaging 9 ± 6.2 years were studied. Pain was common (86%) and often moderate to severe (40%). Surgical patients reported pain more frequently when enrolled than did medical patients (99% vs. 65%). Female gender, age ≥ 5 years, and Caucasian race were all associated with higher mean pain scores. Furthermore, females and Caucasian children consumed more opioids than males and non-Caucasians. Identified obstacles to optimal analgesic management include lack of documented physician pain assessment (<5%), a high prevalence of "as needed" analgesic dosing, frequent opioid-induced side effects (44% nausea and vomiting, 27% pruritus), and patient/family dissatisfaction with pain management (2%-7%). The data demonstrated that despite a concentrated focus on improving pain management over the past decade, pain remains common in hospitalized children. Identification of patient populations and characteristics that predispose to increased pain (e.g., female, Caucasian, postoperative patient) as well as obstacles to analgesic management provide a focus for the development of targeted interventions and research to further improve care.

Why is pain still not being assessed adequately? Results of a pain prevalence study in a university hospital in Sweden

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pain and pain assessment among inpatients in a university hospital.

BACKGROUND

Pain management could be considered an indicator of quality of care. Few studies report on prevalence measures including all inpatients.

DESIGN

Quantitative and explorative.

METHOD

Survey.

RESULTS

Of the inpatients at the hospital who answered the survey, 494 (65%) reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 81% rated their pain >3 and 42.1% rated their pain >7. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 38.7% had been asked to self-assess their pain using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); 29.6% of the patients were completely satisfied, and 11.5% were not at all satisfied with their participation in pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

The result showed that too many patients are still suffering from pain and that the NRS is not used to the extent it should be. Efforts to overcome under-implementation of pain assessment are required, particularly on wards where pain is not obvious, e.g., wards that do not deal with surgery patients. Work to improve pain management must be carried out through collaboration across professional groups.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Using a pain assessment tool such as the NRS could help patients express their pain and improve communication between nurses and patients in relation to pain as well as allow patients to participate in their own care. Carrying out prevalence pain measures similar to those used here could be helpful in performing quality improvement work in the area of pain management.

Collaborative quality improvement to manage pain in acute care hospitals

OBJECTIVE

Collaborative quality improvement programs have been successfully used to manage chronic diseases in adults and acute lung complications in premature infants. Their effectiveness to improve pain management in acute care hospitals is currently unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a collaborative quality improvement program implemented at hospital level could improve pain management and overall pain relief.

DESIGN

To assess the effectiveness of the program, we performed a before-after trial comparing patient's self-reported pain management and experience before and after program implementation. We included all adult patients hospitalized for more than 24 hours and discharged either to their home or to a nursing facility, between March 1, 2001 and March 31, 2001 (before program implementation) and between September 15, 2005 and October 15, 2005 (after program implementation).

SETTING

A teaching hospital of 2,096 beds in Geneva, Switzerland.

PATIENTS

All adult patients hospitalized for more than 24 hours and discharged between 1 to 31 March 2001 (before program) and 15 September to 15 October 2005 (after program implementation).

INTERVENTIONS

Implementation of a collaborative quality improvement program using multifaceted interventions (staff education, opinion leaders, patient education, audit, and feedback) to improve pain management at hospital level.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-reported pain experience, pain management, and overall hospital experience based on the Picker Patient Experience questionnaire, perceived health (SF-36 Health survey).

RESULTS

After implementation of the program only 2.3% of the patients reported having no pain relief during their hospital stay (vs 4.5% in 2001, P=0.05). Among nonsurgical patients, improvements were observed for pain assessment (42.3% vs 27.9% of the patients had pain intensity measured with a visual analog scale, P=0.012), pain management (staff did everything they could to help in 78.9% vs 67.9% of cases P=0.003), and pain relief (70.4% vs 57.3% of patients reported full pain relief P=0.008). In surgical patients, pain assessment also improved (53.7.3% vs 37.6%) as well as pain treatment. More patients received treatments to relieve pain regularly or intermittently after program implementation (95.1% vs 91.9% P=0.046).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a collaborative quality improvement program at hospital level improved both pain management and pain relief in patients. Further studies are needed to determine the overall cost-effectiveness of such programs.

Assessment and management of acute pain in adult medical inpatients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature addressing effective care for acute pain in inpatients on medical wards.

METHODS

We searched Medline, PubMed Clinical Queries, and the Cochrane Database for systematic reviews published in 1996 through April 2007 on the assessment and management of acute pain in inpatients, including patients with impaired self-report or chemical dependencies. We conducted a focused search for studies on the timing and frequency of assessment, and on the use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for nonsurgical pain. Two investigators performed a critical analysis of the literature and compiled narrative summaries to address the key questions.

RESULTS

We found no evidence that directly linked the timing, frequency, or method of pain assessment with outcomes or safety in medical inpatients. There is good evidence that treating abdominal pain does not compromise timely diagnosis and treatment of the surgical abdomen. Pain management teams and other systemwide interventions improve assessment and use of analgesics, but do not clearly affect pain outcomes. The safety and effectiveness of PCA in medical patients have not been studied. There is weak evidence that most cognitively impaired individuals can understand at least one self-assessment measure. Almost no evidence is available to guide management of pain in delirium. Evidence for managing pain in patients with substance abuse disorders or chronic opioid use is weak, being derived from case reports, retrospective studies, and expert opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain is a prevalent problem for medical inpatients. Clinical research is needed to guide the assessment and management of pain in this setting.