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


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.

9 Reads
  • [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. DOI:10.1016/S2173-5077(09)70071-7 · 0.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives An expert group coordinated by the Andalusian School of Public Health identified the most serious and frequent adverse events in Pain Treatment Units (PTU), as well the failures and underlying causes, as a prior step to preparing preventive actions. The aims of the project were to identify potential adverse events in Pain Treatment Units, identify failures and their underlying causes, and prioritise these failures according to a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) tool.Material and methodsThe method employed consisted of a literature search, the selection of an expert group with experience in PTU, creating a catalogue of adverse events using the generation of ideas technique, and putting the FMEA and Risk Priority Index tools into practice.ResultsUp to 66 types of adverse events were identified associated with; medication (30), invasive techniques (15), care process (10), patient information and education (6), and clinical practice (5). It was found that up to 101 failures could be triggered by these adverse events, and that 242 causes could lead to these failures.Conclusions The results indicated the need to work principally in two directions, improving the care process in the PTU (the health care organisation), and the professional work, this latter having two aspects, improving the clinical practice, and increase professional skills by means of specific training. Communication, whether inter-professional or inter-department, or with the patient and their family, is identified as a key aspect for improvement.
    Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion 10/2012; 59(8):423–429. DOI:10.1016/j.redar.2012.04.023
Show more


9 Reads
Available from