Pain Experienced by Patients Hospitalized at the National Cancer Institute of Milan: Research Project “Towards a Pain-Free Hospital”

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sónia F. Bernardes ◽  
Marta Matos ◽  
Susana Mourão ◽  
Christin-Melanie Vauclair

Abstract Objectives Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs over persistent, stable, and adequately controlled cancer background pain. It is prevalent and bears severe consequences to patients’ quality-of-life. The effective management of BTcP depends on fast and reliable (re)assessment. The Breakthrough pain Assessment Tool (BAT) is one of the most concise and reliable self-report instruments adapted to clinical contexts so far, showing good psychometric qualities in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and South Korea. As to promote the effective management of BTcP in Portuguese-speaking communities this study, first aimed to culturally adapt and validate the Portuguese version of the BAT (BAT-Pt). Second, and most importantly, it sought to provide novel evidence on its criterion validity by investigating its association with measures of psychological distress, which has not been yet investigated. Methods The BAT was translated into European Portuguese, using the back-translation method, and culturally adapted. Its psychometric properties (factor structure, internal consistency, construct and criterion validity) were analyzed in a cross-sectional multicenter study, with a sample of 65 cancer patients (49.2% women) recruited from eight hospitals in mainland Portugal (a priori power analysis determined a minimum sample of 50). Health professionals collected patients’ clinical information, assessed their functional disability (ECOG Performance Status) and the adequacy of pain control. In addition to the Portuguese version of the BAT (BAT_Pt), patients completed the Portuguese versions of the Brief Pain Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, a Distress Thermometer and answered questions about the adequacy of pain control. Results The BAT-Pt was very well accepted by experts and patients. As hypothesized, a Principal Axis Factor Analysis revealed two underlying factors accounting for 55.2% of the variance: (1) Pain Severity and Impact of BTcP and (2) Duration of BTcP and Medication Inefficacy. Two items (on episode frequency and medication efficacy) were analyzed separately given their lower/cross loadings. The BAT-Pt showed good internal consistency overall (α=0.79) and for each sub-scale, namely, Pain Severity and Impact of BTcP (n=5 items; α=0.86) and Duration of BTcP and Medication Inefficacy (n=2 items; rsb=0.62). The BAT-Pt showed good convergent validity, being moderately to strongly associated with overall pain severity and interference (0.46<r<0.77, p<0.001). It also showed good concurrent validity by being associated not only with physical outcomes – such as functional disability (r=0.40, p<0.001) and patient- and physician-determined adequacy of BTcP control (|0.25<rpb<0.63|, p s <0.05) – but also, with distress (0.33<r<0.46, p s <0.001), anxiety (0.28<r<0.44, p s <0.05) and depression (r=0.47, p<0.001). Conclusions The BAT-Pt is a reliable and valid measure of breakthrough pain in Portuguese cancer patients and it is strongly associated to physical and psychological outcomes. This study confirms and extends the psychometric validation of the BAT to a new cultural context, promoting its diffusion and use by researchers and clinicians in Portuguese-speaking communities. The BAT-Pt may be an invaluable tool for daily clinical practice by tapping multiple aspects of BTcP experiences that are associated to patients’ physical and psychological outcomes.


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.


2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEIKO TAMURA ◽  
KAORI ICHIHARA ◽  
EIKO MAETAKI ◽  
KEIKO TAKAYAMA ◽  
KUMI TANISAWA ◽  
...  

Objective: This research explores the potential benefit of a spiritual pain assessment sheet to clinical practice. With spiritual pain defined as “pain caused by extinction of the being and meaning of the self,” the spiritual pain assessment sheet was developed by Hisayuki Murata from his conceptual framework reflecting the three dimensions of a human being as a being founded on temporality, a being in relationship, and a being with autonomy. The assessment sheet was developed from reviews of the literature and examinations from a philosophical perspective on the structure of spiritual pain.Methods: Patients admitted to palliative care units in Japan were interviewed using the assessment sheet. The responses were analyzed qualitatively. The usefulness of the assessment sheet and the burden placed on the patients by its use were also investigated.Results: The spiritual pain elucidated by the assessment sheet was the same as that revealed in the earlier research of Morita. The patients reported that they did not find the use of the assessment sheet a burden, and more than half reported that it was useful. The burden of the assessment sheet on the subjects was thus determined to be low. Positive feedback on the assessment sheet was also received from the nurses who conducted the patient interviews, who said the assessment sheet made it easier to talk with the patients about their spiritual pain.Significance of research: The research results indicate that the spiritual pain assessment sheet provided an appropriate assessment of spiritual pain among terminal cancer patients, showing that such a sheet could be used as an assessment tool in the future.


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 (&lt;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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-83
Author(s):  
Nurhayati Nurhayati ◽  
Mayoora Madsiri

Following abdominal surgery, ischaemia and neuropeptide release cause pain at the trauma site, and there is a high incidence of moderate-to-severe pain. Inadequate pain management leads to complications, delayed recovery and prolonged hospitalisation, and thus, effective management is essential. This article describes an implementation of acute pain management after abdominal surgery. A multidimensional assessment tool collected data on demographics, medical history and surgical situation, as well as interventions used, their administration route and their side effects. Pain level was recorded on a scale of 0–10, both at rest and during physical activity, by postoperative day; patient participation and satisfaction were also recorded. Nine patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. Pharmacological analgesic interventions included opioids (morphine, fentanyl and tramadol) and paracetamol. Administration was either intravenous, epidural or via patient-controlled analgesia. These were combined with non-pharmacological interventions, specifically cold gel packs, massage therapy and music therapy. All patients achieved the adequate management goals of pain at rest below 3/10 and during activity below 4/10, and all participated in pain decision-making, were satisfied with pain treatment, and reported the usefulness of preoperative information. Pain management following abdominal surgery is vital, and the use of a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological techniques was effective.


2022 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 237437352110496
Author(s):  
Jenni Hämäläinen ◽  
Tarja Kvist ◽  
Päivi Kankkunen

For many patients, acute pain is a common cause to seek treatment in an Emergency Department (ED). An inadequate assessment could cause inappropriate pain management. The aim of this study was to describe and explain patients’ perceptions of acute pain assessment in the Emergency Department. The data were collected from ED patients (n = 114). Patients reported that nurses were asking about intensity of pain at rest, but only 52% during movement. According to the patients, the most common tools to assess acute pain were the verbal rating scale (VRS; 54% of patients), numerical rating scale (NRS; 28% of patients), and visual analogue scale (VAS; 9.7% of patients). Over twenty per cent of patients stated that ED nurses did not ask about the intensity of pain after analgesic administration. Twenty-four per cent of the patients were not pleased with nursing pain assessment in the ED. The assessment of acute pain is still inadequate in the ED. Therefore, ED nurses need to be more attentive to systematic acute pain management of patients in the ED.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 230s-230s
Author(s):  
A. Joseph ◽  
O. Salako ◽  
A. Alabi ◽  
A. Adenipekun

Background: Cancer has become a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults globally. Pain is universally one of the most commonly encountered symptoms by health and supportive care providers involved in care of cancer patients. Inadequate pain control negatively impacts the patient´s quality of life, and may slow down the healing process. Health care providers often ignore pain control as a target of treatment as they focus on reducing the tumor burden. Pain management should be considered an important target and end point in the treatment of cancer patients. Aim: To assess the prevalence of pain, oncologists´ prescribing patterns; and efficacy of pain control in the Radiotherapy Department of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital. Methods: Adult cancer outpatients were assessed using a Universal Pain Assessment Tool and followed up for 2-6 weeks thereafter. Pain scores were assessed at first interview and at the follow-up appointment within 2 weeks minimum and 6 weeks maximum. Results: 347 adult clinic attendees were recruited, assessed, and followed up with interviewer-administered questionnaires over a close-out period of 6 weeks. There was an 85% (298 respondents) prevalence of pain in the study group; with over half of respondents characterizing their pain in the moderate to severe ranges. [Figure: see text] 9 out of 10 respondents stated the cancer was the primary source of their pain. Other sources of pain were medical tests; and treatment-related such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy. 86 patients (29% of study group) were not asked about pain by their attending physician, and all respondents stated their physician had not used any pain assessment tool to determine the nature or severity of their pain. [Figure: see text] Oral nonsteroidal analgesics were the most frequently prescribed form of pain control (237 patients), with radiotherapy coming in second (69 patients). The only available strong opioid analgesics at the oncology pharmacy were oral morphine and parenteral pentazocine. Oxycodone, fentanyl pethidine, and hydromorphone were unavailable. Interventional (e.g., cordotomy) and alternative (e.g., massage) forms of pain control were not prescribed in any patients. 43 respondents (15%) despite being in pain, did not receive any form of treatment or recommendation for pain control. At follow-up appointment 2-6 weeks after; 4 out of 10 respondents had not obtained pain relief from instituted measures. [Figure: see text] Conclusion: Undertreatment of cancer pain remains a major concern. The treatment process must begin with a proper and thorough evaluation of the patient's pain; a clear pain control goal and end point target; and regular reevaluation with application of guidelines when adequate control is not achieved. Inclusion of pain assessment and management guidelines in medical training would be of benefit to reduce the prevalence of inadequately controlled pain in patients living with cancer; ultimately improving their quality of life.


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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil A. Hagen ◽  
Carla Stiles ◽  
Cheryl Nekolaichuk ◽  
Patricia Biondo ◽  
Linda E. Carlson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document