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.

Full-text preview

Available from: sedar.es
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2008 · Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives 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. Patients and methods 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. Results 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%. Conclusions 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.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2008 · Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To propose and implement strategies to improve pain management in hospitals belonging to the Municipal Institute of Healthcare (Instituto Municipal de Asistencia Sanitaria, Barcelona, Spain), the Committee for Pain Evaluation and Treatment developed a questionnaire to be used in patients admitted to these centers to complement a previous survey of opinions and attitudes among hospital staff.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2009 · World Pumps
Show more