BACKGROUND: Pain is a major quality issue. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a series of interventions on pain management. METHODS: This controlled clinical trial (April 1, 2002, to February 28, 2003) involved the staggered implementation of 3 interventions into 2 blocks of matched hospital units. The setting was an 1171-bed hospital. A total of 3964 adults were studied. Interventions included education, standardized pain assessment using a 1- or 4-item (enhanced) pain scale, audit and feedback of pain scores to nursing staff, and a computerized decision support system. The main outcome measures were pain assessment and severity and analgesic prescribing. RESULTS: Units using enhanced pain scales had significantly higher pain assessment rates than units using 1-item pain scales (64% vs 32%; P<.001), audit and feedback of pain results was associated with increases in pain assessment rates compared with units in which audit and feedback was not used (85% vs 64%; P<.001), and the addition of the computerized decision support system was associated with significant increases in pain assessment only when compared with units without audit and feedback (79% vs 64%; P<.001). The enhanced pain scale was associated with significant increases in prescribing of World Health Organization step 2 or 3 analgesic for patients with moderate or severe pain compared with the 1-item scale (83% vs 66%; P=.01). The interventions did not improve pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful pain assessment instrument combined with either audit and feedback or a computerized decision support system improved pain documentation to more than 80%. The enhanced pain scale was associated with improved analgesic prescribing. Future interventions should be directed toward altering physician behavior related to titration of opioid analgesics.
BACKGROUND:Pain is a major quality issue. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a series of interventions on pain management. METHODS: This controlled clinical trial (April 1, 2002, to February 28, 2003) involved the staggered implementation of 3 interventions into 2 blocks of matched hospital units. The setting was an 1171-bed hospital. A total of 3964 adults were studied. Interventions included education, standardized pain assessment using a 1- or 4-item (enhanced) pain scale, audit and feedback of pain scores to nursing staff, and a computerized decision support system. The main outcome measures were pain assessment and severity and analgesic prescribing. RESULTS: Units using enhanced pain scales had significantly higher pain assessment rates than units using 1-item pain scales (64% vs 32%; P<.001), audit and feedback of pain results was associated with increases in pain assessment rates compared with units in which audit and feedback was not used (85% vs 64%; P<.001), and the addition of the computerized decision support system was associated with significant increases in pain assessment only when compared with units without audit and feedback (79% vs 64%; P<.001). The enhanced pain scale was associated with significant increases in prescribing of World Health Organization step 2 or 3 analgesic for patients with moderate or severe pain compared with the 1-item scale (83% vs 66%; P=.01). The interventions did not improve pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically meaningful pain assessment instrument combined with either audit and feedback or a computerized decision support system improved pain documentation to more than 80%. The enhanced pain scale was associated with improved analgesic prescribing. Future interventions should be directed toward altering physician behavior related to titration of opioid analgesics.
Authors: C S Cleeland; R Gonin; A K Hatfield; J H Edmonson; R H Blum; J A Stewart; K J Pandya Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Blum; Sunil X Raj; Rolf Oberholzer; Ingrid I Riphagen; Florian Strasser; Stein Kaasa Journal: Patient Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: R Sean Morrison; Eitan Dickman; Ula Hwang; Saadia Akhtar; Taja Ferguson; Jennifer Huang; Christina L Jeng; Bret P Nelson; Meg A Rosenblatt; Jeffrey H Silverstein; Reuben J Strayer; Toni M Torrillo; Knox H Todd Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Marita G Titler; Keela Herr; John M Brooks; Xian-Jin Xie; Gail Ardery; Margo L Schilling; J Lawrence Marsh; Linda Q Everett; William R Clarke Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Richard J Lin; M Carrington Reid; Lydia L Liu; Amy E Chused; Arthur T Evans Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Marci L Nilsen; Susan M Sereika; Leslie A Hoffman; Amber Barnato; Heidi Donovan; Mary Beth Happ Journal: Res Gerontol Nurs Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 1.571
Authors: Evelien H van der Peet; Marieke H J van den Beuken-van Everdingen; Jacob Patijn; Harry C Schouten; Maarten van Kleef; Annemie M Courtens Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-12-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R Sean Morrison; Steven Flanagan; Daniel Fischberg; Alexie Cintron; Albert L Siu Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 5.562