scholarly journals FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A NOVEL PAIN ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR IMPROVING PREHOSPITAL PAIN MANAGEMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. e12.2-e12
Author(s):  
Mohammad Iqbal ◽  
P Anne Spaight ◽  
Ros Kane ◽  
Zahid Asghar ◽  
A Niroshan Siriwardena
Author(s):  
Dorette Husbands-Anderson ◽  
Jennifer Szerb ◽  
Alexandra Harvey

Objectives: To observe the method of pain assessment and pain management intervention performed by nurses in the PACU. Methods and Design: A QI prospective observational study was conducted to observe nurse’s pain assessment and management of thirty (30) patients from the time of PACU admission to discharge. The sample size was determined using the sealed envelope power calculator. Data Collection Included: patients demographics, the method and frequency of pain assessments as well as modalities of the pain intervention and the type and average dose of pain medications administered by PACU nurses. Data analysis was done using Microsoft excel. Results: No validated pain assessment tool was used in the PACU.  The majority of patients 67%, n=20) had no pain assessments or pain interventions. When performed, the frequency of pain assessments recorded were low, 70% of patients had 1-2 assessments. The principal pain management intervention was pharmacological with the use of opioids, accounting for 96%. Conclusion: Post-operative pain management in the PACU at GPHC does not meet accepted standards of care. More frequent nursing pain assessment using a validated pain assessment tool is required. Monotherapy with the opioid was the main pain intervention for pain management. Recommendations: Effective pain management begins with the appropriate pain assessment; therefore pain management education programs for health care professionals are essential. Also, the implementation of a standardized pain assessment tool, a standardized post anesthetic order sheet with a multimodal approach to pain management and restructuring the post-anesthetic record to allow for documentation of pain assessment will greatly improve pain management in the PACU.


2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Gélinas ◽  
Martine Fortier ◽  
Chantal Viens ◽  
Lise Fillion ◽  
Kathleen Puntillo

• Background Little research has been done on pain assessment in critical care, especially in patients who cannot communicate verbally.• Objectives To describe (1) pain indicators used by nurses and physicians for pain assessment, (2) pain management (pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions) undertaken by nurses to relieve pain, and (3) pain indicators used for pain reassessment by nurses to verify the effectiveness of pain management in patients who are intubated.• Methods Medical files from 2 specialized healthcare centers in Quebec City, Quebec, were reviewed. A data collection instrument based on Melzack’s theory was developed from existing tools. Pain-related indicators were clustered into nonobservable/subjective (patients’ self-reports of pain) and observable/objective (physiological and behavioral) categories.• Results A total of 183 pain episodes in 52 patients who received mechanical ventilation were analyzed. Observable indicators were recorded 97% of the time. Patients’ self-reports of pain were recorded only 29% of the time, a practice contradictory to recommendations for pain assessment. Pharmacological interventions were used more often (89% of the time) than nonpharmacological interventions (<25%) for managing pain. Almost 40% of the time, pain was not reassessed after an intervention. For reassessments, observable indicators were recorded 66% of the time; patients self-reports were recorded only 8% of the time.• Conclusions Pain documentation in medical files is incomplete or inadequate. The lack of a pain assessment tool may contribute to this situation. Research is still needed in the development of tools to enhance pain assessment in critically ill intubated patients.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 895-895
Author(s):  
Jennifer Rose

Abstract Pain is neither a vital sign nor a normal part of aging. Yet, older adults frequently experience pain chronically or from an acute event. Pain was identified as a gap per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Quality Measures report (2019). The purpose of this quality improvement project was to improve the assessment of pain at a skilled nursing facility (SNF) by using a standardized tool. The Comprehensive Pain Assessment Tool for the Cognitively Intact evaluates the complex sensation and emotional reaction of the pain experience. Nurse managers (N=7) received 1:1 education on pain, pain assessment, use of the pain assessment tool, and took a post-test. Chart audits were conducted to identify tool use and evaluate the patient response. Additional data were collected from nurse managers via a questionnaire. All nurse managers received education and completed the post-test. Pain assessments and care plans were completed for 100% of the SNF residents in the cohort (N=22). Follow-up assessments were completed on only 75% of the cohort. Of the cohort, 95% demonstrated improved physical ability and functioning in activities of daily living as their pain experience improved. Only 4.5% of the cohort participated in the anticipated level of minutes of therapy as a result of facility infection control limitations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This project demonstrated improved pain management through use of a tool to comprehensively assess pain. An organizational policy to comprehensively assess pain at this SNF could promote a higher level of independence and functioning for older adults.


This case focuses on neonatal pain management by asking the question: Is the CRIES score a valid and reliable method for assessing neonatal postoperative pain? Regular pain assessment and treatment in the neonatal population are important postoperatively. The CRIES scale was designed to measure pain in the neonatal population, and this study demonstrated CRIES to be a valid and reliable assessment tool for identifying postsurgical pain in neonates. Multiple pain assessment tools, including CRIES, are available for use in neonatal patients and in patient populations who are otherwise unable to verbalize discomfort.


2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 430-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A. Cervo ◽  
Patricia Bruckenthal ◽  
Suzanne Fields ◽  
Lory E. Bright-Long ◽  
John J. Chen ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. S135
Author(s):  
U. Stering ◽  
M. Schreier ◽  
S. Pitzer ◽  
B. Iglseder ◽  
J. Osterbrink

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Nam Lim ◽  
Hye-Sook Han ◽  
Ki-Hyeung Lee ◽  
Sang-Cheol Lee ◽  
JungHan Kim ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 412-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Ripamonti ◽  
Ernesto Zecca ◽  
Cinzia Brunelli ◽  
Liliana Groff ◽  
Roberto Boffi ◽  
...  

According to the data of the literature, the prevalence of pain in cancer patients at various stages of the disease and the settings of care range from 38 to 51%, with an increase of up to 74% in the advanced and terminal stages. Despite published World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pain management, 42 to 51% of cancer patients receive inadequate analgesia and 30% receive no analgesics at all. A 3-year Research Project “Towards a Pain-free Hospital”, which began one year ago, is ongoing at the National Cancer Institute of Milan. The research is organized in three subsequent steps. In the 1st one, a series of patient- and staff-oriented evaluation tools are used to assess the level of appropriateness of pain communication, assessment, management and control of the in-patients. The 2nd step will implement a number of continuing educational interventions aimed at improving patient awareness and staff knowledge of the appropriate pain assessment and management in order to respond to the patient's pain problem. In the 3rd step, all the assessment tools used in step one will be applied again to establish the prevalence of pain, the causes and intensity and patient satisfaction with pain management and to evaluate the impact of the interventions performed during the 2nd step regarding the overall ability of our hospital to tackle pain emergency in the hospitalized cancer population. The results relative to the 1st step are herein reported, in particular as regards the study on prevalence, causes, severity of pain, the interference of pain with sleep, mood and concentration, the use of pain medications and the relief obtained, the structural validity and internal consistency of the assessment tool used. A total of 258 patients hospitalized for at least 24 h were interviewed by 9 physicians using a brief structured questionnaire prepared ad hoc: 51.5% of the patients presented pain during the previous 24 h caused by surgery (49.6%) or by the tumor mass itself (29.3%). Out of the 133 patients with pain, a high degree (much or very much) of pain at rest was present in 27.1% and pain on movement in 30.8%; 31.6% did not take any analgesic treatment, and 14.3% of the latter reported a high degree of pain at rest and 21.4% on movement. Pain interfered with sleep from much to very much in 28.8% and with irritability and nervousness in 15.9% of the patients. In the 91 patients taking analgesics, 57.2% reported a high degree of pain relief. A high degree of pain and interference, however, was associated with low relief levels. The assessment tool used was shown to have a good structural validity and internal consistency (Chrombach alpha index of interference scale = 0.73). Although the Milan Cancer Institute has the longest tradition in Italy of pain assessment by means of validated tools and pain management according to the WHO guidelines and educational efforts in this field, the results of the study clearly show that it is necessary to persevere with continuing educational and informative programs in order to reduce the frequency and severity of pain and thus improve the quality of life of in-patients.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Harritos

Inadequate pain assessment is a significant problem and a key barrier to appropriate pain management. This project evaluates the feasibility, effectiveness, and impact of using the PEG scale, a 3-item pain assessment tool in place of the unidimensional Numeric Rating Scale to assess chronic pain in a primary care setting. A multidimensional pain assessment tool that evaluates not only the severity of pain, but also the impact of pain on quality and functioning could improve patient care and pain management.


2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 212-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ananda Maria Fernandes ◽  
Catarina De Campos ◽  
Luis Batalha ◽  
Ana Perdigão ◽  
Eufemia Jacob

BACKGROUND: The Adolescent Pediatric Pain Tool (APPT) is a multidimensional pain assessment tool designed to assess pain location (body outline diagram), intensity (word graphic rating scale) and quality (list of pain descriptors) in hospitalized children eight to 17 years of age.OBJECTIVES: To identify the age range, health conditions, settings and purpose for which APPT has been used; the components of the APPT that have been used; and the reported clinical and research utility of the APPT.METHODS: A systematic review of published studies using the APPT was performed. Studies were identified through electronic searches in CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, SciELO and PsycInfo.RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were analyzed. APPT has been used in patients between two and 68 years of age, with various acute and chronic conditions, in and out of hospital. All but six studies used the three components of the APPT. Most of the studies used the total number of sites marked, mean pain intensity and mean number of pain descriptors selected as main outcome measures; however, scoring methods varied. Studies report that the use of the APPT is relevant for clinical practice and for research.CONCLUSION: Obtaining self-report of pain using the APPT may help clinicians to tailor pain management interventions. It may also be used in studies to provide a deeper understanding of the pain experience and to examine the effectiveness of pain management interventions. However, outcome measures and methods of scoring the different components of the APPT need to be clearly identified.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document