Literature DB >> 29421247

"It Encourages Them to Complain": A Qualitative Study of the Unintended Consequences of Assessing Patient-Reported Pain.

Sangeeta C Ahluwalia1, Karleen F Giannitrapani2, Steven K Dobscha3, Risa Cromer4, Karl A Lorenz2.   

Abstract

The "Pain as the 5th Vital Sign" initiative intended to address undertreatment of pain by encouraging routine pain assessment and management. In the Veterans Health Administration, routine pain screening has been practiced in primary care for more than a decade, but has not improved the quality of pain management measured using several process indicators, and some have expressed concerns of potentially fostering undesirable use of prescription opioids. We sought to evaluate the consequences of routine pain screening on clinical practice. We conducted 9 interdisciplinary focus groups with 60 primary care providers and staff from 5 outpatient Veterans Health Administration clinics. We identified 5 themes reflecting 1 intended and 4 unintended consequences of routine pain screening: it 1) facilitates identification of patients with pain who might otherwise be overlooked, 2) may need to be targeted toward specific patients and contexts rather than universally applied, 3) often shifts visit focus away from more emergent concerns, 4) may encourage "false positives" and prompt providers to intervene when treatment is not a priority, and 5) engenders a "pain problem" and hinders patients from considering alternative strategies. These findings suggest changes to support patient-centered pain assessment and improve targeted screening and interventions for population pain management. PERSPECTIVE: This article describes some of the potential unintended consequences of implementing routine pain screening in primary care. This information may help clinicians be more strategic in their consideration and use of pain screening among their patients.
Copyright © 2018 The American Pain Society. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pain measurement; focus groups; pain management; primary health care; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29421247     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.12.270

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain        ISSN: 1526-5900            Impact factor:   5.820


  6 in total

Review 1.  Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Rachel Campbell; Angela Ju; Madeleine T King; Claudia Rutherford
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Experiences of Military Primary Care Providers During Chronic Pain Visits: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.

Authors:  Asha Mathew; Honor McQuinn; Diane M Flynn; Jeffrey C Ransom; Ardith Z Doorenbos
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.637

3.  Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes by Health Systems and Physician Practices in the USA.

Authors:  Hector P Rodriguez; Martin J Kyalwazi; Valerie A Lewis; Karl Rubio; Stephen M Shortell
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 6.473

4.  Expanding the role of clinical pharmacists on interdisciplinary primary care teams for chronic pain and opioid management.

Authors:  Karleen F Giannitrapani; Peter A Glassman; Derek Vang; Jeremiah C McKelvey; R Thomas Day; Steven K Dobscha; Karl A Lorenz
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  Pain as the fifth vital sign-A comparison between public and private healthcare systems.

Authors:  Daniel Humberto Pozza; Luís Filipe Azevedo; José Manuel Castro Lopes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A User-Centered Approach to an Evidence-Based Electronic Health Pain Management Intervention for People With Chronic Pain: Design and Development of EPIO.

Authors:  Ingrid Konstanse Ledel Solem; Cecilie Varsi; Hilde Eide; Olöf Birna Kristjansdottir; Elin Børøsund; Karlein M G Schreurs; Lori B Waxenberg; Karen E Weiss; Eleshia J Morrison; Mette Haaland-Øverby; Katherine Bevan; Heidi Andersen Zangi; Audun Stubhaug; Lise Solberg Nes
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 5.428

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.