BACKGROUND: Researchers and quality improvement advocates sometimes use review of chart-documented pain care processes to assess the quality of pain management. Studies have found that primary care providers frequently fail to document pain assessment and management. OBJECTIVES: To assess documentation of pain care processes in an academic primary care clinic and evaluate the validity of this documentation as a measure of pain care delivered. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: 237 adult patients at a university-affiliated internal medicine clinic who reported any pain in the last week. MEASURES: Immediately after a visit, we asked patients to report the pain treatment they received. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) to assess pain severity at baseline and 1 month later. We extracted documentation of pain care processes from the medical record and used kappa statistics to assess agreement between documentation and patient report of pain treatment. Using multivariable linear regression, we modeled whether documented or patient-reported pain care predicted change in pain at 1 month. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 53.7 years, 66% were female, and 74% had chronic pain. Physicians documented pain assessment for 83% of visits. Patients reported receiving pain treatment more often (67%) than was documented by physicians (54%). Agreement between documentation and patient report was moderate for receiving a new pain medication (k = 0.50) and slight for receiving pain management advice (k = 0.13). In multivariable models, documentation of new pain treatment was not associated with change in pain (p = 0.134). In contrast, patient-reported receipt of new pain treatment predicted pain improvement (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Chart documentation underestimated pain care delivered, compared with patient report. Documented pain care processes had no relationship with pain outcomes at 1 month, but patient report of receiving care predicted clinically significant improvement. Chart review measures may not accurately reflect the pain management patients receive in primary care.
BACKGROUND: Researchers and quality improvement advocates sometimes use review of chart-documented pain care processes to assess the quality of pain management. Studies have found that primary care providers frequently fail to document pain assessment and management. OBJECTIVES: To assess documentation of pain care processes in an academic primary care clinic and evaluate the validity of this documentation as a measure of pain care delivered. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: 237 adult patients at a university-affiliated internal medicine clinic who reported any pain in the last week. MEASURES: Immediately after a visit, we asked patients to report the pain treatment they received. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) to assess pain severity at baseline and 1 month later. We extracted documentation of pain care processes from the medical record and used kappa statistics to assess agreement between documentation and patient report of pain treatment. Using multivariable linear regression, we modeled whether documented or patient-reported pain care predicted change in pain at 1 month. RESULTS:Participants' mean age was 53.7 years, 66% were female, and 74% had chronic pain. Physicians documented pain assessment for 83% of visits. Patients reported receiving pain treatment more often (67%) than was documented by physicians (54%). Agreement between documentation and patient report was moderate for receiving a new pain medication (k = 0.50) and slight for receiving pain management advice (k = 0.13). In multivariable models, documentation of new pain treatment was not associated with change in pain (p = 0.134). In contrast, patient-reported receipt of new pain treatment predicted pain improvement (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Chart documentation underestimated pain care delivered, compared with patient report. Documented pain care processes had no relationship with pain outcomes at 1 month, but patient report of receiving care predicted clinically significant improvement. Chart review measures may not accurately reflect the pain management patients receive in primary care.
Authors: Richard A Mularski; Foy White-Chu; Devorah Overbay; Lois Miller; Steven M Asch; Linda Ganzini Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Dorcas Beaton; Charles S Cleeland; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Robert D Kerns; Deborah N Ader; Nancy Brandenburg; Laurie B Burke; David Cella; Julie Chandler; Penny Cowan; Rozalina Dimitrova; Raymond Dionne; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Nathaniel P Katz; Henrik Kehlet; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Cynthia McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Henry J McQuay; Sanjay Patel; Linda Porter; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Christine Rauschkolb; Dennis A Revicki; Margaret Rothman; Kenneth E Schmader; Brett R Stacey; Joseph W Stauffer; Thorsten von Stein; Richard E White; James Witter; Stojan Zavisic Journal: J Pain Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Jessica J Wyse; Benjamin J Morasco; Steven K Dobscha; Michael I Demidenko; Thomas H A Meath; Travis I Lovejoy Journal: J Opioid Manag Date: 2018 Jul/Aug
Authors: Liana Fraenkel; Paul Falzer; Terri Fried; Minna Kohler; Ellen Peters; Robert Kerns; Howard Leventhal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jessica S Merlin; Janet M Turan; Ivan Herbey; Andrew O Westfall; Joanna L Starrels; Stefan G Kertesz; Michael S Saag; Christine S Ritchie Journal: Pain Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Daniel J Tancredi; Christina K Slee; Anthony Jerant; Peter Franks; Jasmine Nettiksimmons; Camille Cipri; Dustin Gottfeld; Julia Huerta; Mitchell D Feldman; Maja Jackson-Triche; Steven Kelly-Reif; Andrew Hudnut; Sarah Olson; Janie Shelton; Richard L Kravitz Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 2.655