Assessment of cancer pain
19500 Background: This study investigates: 1) The concordance between patients and staffs’ standard use of the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, in which 1–4 is mild pain, 5–6 is moderate and 7 and above is severe; 2) The relative importance of functional impairment secondary to pain in patients’ pain ratings. Methods: Patients with cancer and current or previous pain (N=178) were asked to complete a fifteen minute interview with open-ended questions about their perception of pain. Results: When asked to define mild, moderate and severe pain according to the NRS, 65% of patients gave numbers that did not meet standard definitions as noted above. When asked to define mild, moderate and severe pain in general, 38% differentiated severity of pain based on its impact on their ability to fulfill activities of daily living (ADLs) and 39% differentiated it based on their emotional reactions. When asked to define tolerable pain, 28% described it in terms of its impact on ADLs, while 30% described it in terms of the NRS. For those patients who used a NRS, the mean value for tolerable pain was 4.9 (range 2–8) and the mean value for intolerable pain was 8.1 (range 5–10). 26% of patients defined satisfactory pain control based its impact on ADLs while only 2% defined it according to a NRS. 68% of patients reported that pain interfered with their ADLs, however only 33% reported that pain medication interfered. Conclusions: There is discordance between the standard definition of the NRS and patient perceptions of it, suggesting it should be supplemented by other types of pain assessment. Based on NRS, patients tolerate higher levels of pain than expected. Patient satisfaction with pain control is more dependent upon ability to complete ADLs than on a numerical rating of pain. Therefore, patients’ ability to function at an acceptable level should be part of the standard pain assessment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.