Article

Pain in the hospital: from prevalence to quality standards

Servicio de Epidemiología Clinica y Salud Pública, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona.
Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion 03/2005; 52(3):131-40.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pain diminishes the quality of life of patients and a high prevalence of pain calls into question the quality of health care being delivered. The present study analyzes the prevalence of pain in one hospital, by departments and by therapeutic approach used.
This cross-sectional study was carried out in a representative sample of 309 patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital. Information was gathered by patient interviews and by reviewing hospital records for personal characteristics, clinical situation, pain characteristics and analgesic treatment.
The prevalence of pain was 54.7% overall. The prevalence of pain eligible for treatment (intensity >2 on a visual analog scale) was 43.5%. The prevalence of pain that was moderate to intense (>3) was 34.7%. No analgesia was prescribed for 18.7% of the patients eligible, and analgesia was effective for 47.3%. Analgesia was provided on demand (63.2%) in most clinic protocols, usually with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, opioids and special techniques, administered in combination to half the patients. The prevalence and intensity of pain and the prescription protocols varied from one hospital department to another. Analgesic treatment was adequate for 67.1% of the patients.
The results suggest that the prevalence of pain in the hospital is high and that it is possible to improve quality of clinical approach, in agreement with studies that have been appearing since the 1980s. The persistence of the problem of pain in health care centers requires action on all levels of the health care system.

0 Followers
 · 
88 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To improve the safety and effectiveness of acute postoperative pain treatment in patients under the care of our acute pain clinic, we set 3 objectives: to establish a computerized registry updated daily for all patients treated in the unit, to define categories of quality indicators for assessing the results of acute postoperative pain treatment, and to compare our results with those reported in the literature. Prospective study of all patients treated by our pain clinic from May 2004 through June 2007. We analyzed 19 previously defined indicators in 4 categories: case characteristics, effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction. We then compared the results to those in the literature. A total of 3670 patients were included. Results for the most important indicators were as follows: mean follow-up time, 3.1 days (range 1-12 days); effectiveness, 92%; severe pain (>7 on a numerical scale) at rest, 1%; moderate pain (4-6 on the scale) on movement, 31%; accidental catheter removal, 6%; and medication error, 0.4%. Daily follow-up and recording of data for patients treated by the acute pain unit facilitates the evaluation of our clinical practice and contributes with improving safety and effectiveness. Comparison with reports in the literature reveals the great heterogeneity of quality assurance indicators that have been defined.
    Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion 11/2008; 55(9):541-7.
  • Cirugía Española 09/2009; 86(2):61-2. · 0.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine the prevalence of pain in veterinary ICU patients, to determine if there are predictors for patients to be painful, and to relate 3 commonly used pain scoring systems with each other. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: The study was conducted in the small animal ICU at the University of Georgia Veterinary teaching hospital. ANIMALS: All dogs admitted during June 1, 2010-August 5, 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included patients receiving supplemental oxygen, comatose animals, aggressive animals, and animals with a zoonotic disease. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twice daily, at randomly generated times, an independent observer assessed every eligible dog for pain using three different methods: the Glasgow composite pain scale (Glasgow), a visual analogue scale (VAS), and a simple descriptive scale (SDS). Six hundred twenty-nine observations were made on 230 individual dogs over a 63-day time period. Dogs who were receiving hydromorphone or were on the orthopedic or neurosurgical service were more likely to be described as painful. Overall, 22% of dogs were described as painful, and this was not different depending on time of day or day of the week. There was no difference in slope between VAS and Glasgow scores depending on order. The kappa statistic was 0.58 between Glasgow and SDS, 0.70 between VAS and SDS, and 0.47 between Glasgow and VAS. CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, dogs undergoing surgery needed a more intense analgesic approach to ensure that they were nonpainful. The SDS identified the highest number of painful observations of the scoring systems, at the given levels for defining pain.
    01/2013; 23(1). DOI:10.1111/vec.12010
Show more

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from