Measuring pain as the 5th vital sign does not improve quality of pain management

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

To improve pain management, the Veterans Health Administration launched the "Pain as the 5th Vital Sign" initiative in 1999, requiring a pain intensity rating (0 to 10) at all clinical encounters. To measure the initiative's impact on the quality of pain management. We retrospectively reviewed medical records at a single medical center to compare providers' pain management before and after implementing the initiative and performed a subgroup analysis of patients reporting substantial pain (> or =4) during a postimplementation visit. Unique patient visits selected from all 15 primary care providers of a general medicine outpatient clinic. We used 7 process indicators of quality pain management, based on appropriately evaluating and treating pain, to assess 300 randomly selected visits before and 300 visits after implementing the pain initiative. The quality of pain care was unchanged between visits before and after the pain initiative (P>.05 for all comparisons): subjective provider assessment (49.3% before, 48.7% after), pain exam (26.3%, 26.0%), orders to assess pain (11.7%, 8.3%), new analgesic (8.7%, 11.0%), change in existing analgesics (6.7%, 4.3%), other pain treatment (11.7%, 13.7%), or follow-up plans (10.0%, 8.7%). Patients (n=79) who reported substantial pain often did not receive recommended care: 22% had no attention to pain documented in the medical record, 27% had no further assessment documented, and 52% received no new therapy for pain at that visit. Routinely measuring pain by the 5th vital sign did not increase the quality of pain management. Patients with substantial pain documented by the 5th vital sign often had inadequate pain management.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care.

K Kizer, M. Jha, J Perlin … (2003)

In the mid-1990s, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system initiated a systemwide reengineering to, among other things, improve its quality of care. We sought to determine the subsequent change in the quality of health care and to compare the quality with that of the Medicare fee-for-service program. Using data from an ongoing performance-evaluation program in the VA, we evaluated the quality of preventive, acute, and chronic care. We assessed the change in quality-of-care indicators from 1994 (before reengineering) through 2000 and compared the quality of care with that afforded by the Medicare fee-for-service system, using the same indicators of quality. In fiscal year 2000, throughout the VA system, the percentage of patients receiving appropriate care was 90 percent or greater for 9 of 17 quality-of-care indicators and exceeded 70 percent for 13 of 17 indicators. There were statistically significant improvements in quality from 1994-1995 through 2000 for all nine indicators that were collected in all years. As compared with the Medicare fee-for-service program, the VA performed significantly better on all 11 similar quality indicators for the period from 1997 through 1999. In 2000, the VA outperformed Medicare on 12 of 13 indicators. The quality of care in the VA health care system substantially improved after the implementation of a systemwide reengineering and, during the period from 1997 through 2000, was significantly better than that in the Medicare fee-for-service program. These data suggest that the quality-improvement initiatives adopted by the VA in the mid-1990s were effective. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

0 comments Cited 87 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Management of Pain in Elderly Patients With Cancer

Roberto Bernabei (1998)

0 comments Cited 86 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A comparison of pain and its treatment in advanced dementia and cognitively intact patients with hip fracture.

L. Kristopher Siu, Janna Morrison (2000)

Advanced dementia patients may be at substantial risk for undetected or undertreated pain. To examine the treatment of pain following hip fracture, a prospective cohort study was conducted in an academic teaching hospital. Fifty-nine cognitively intact elderly patients with hip fracture and 38 patients with hip fracture and advanced dementia were assessed daily. The cognitively intact patients rated their pain on a numeric scale ranging from 0 (none) to 4 (very severe). Analgesics prescribed and administered were recorded and compared to hip fracture patients with advanced dementia. The advanced dementia patients received one-third the amount of morphine sulfate equivalents as the cognitively intact patients. Forty-four percent of cognitively intact individuals reported severe to very severe pain preoperatively and 42% reported similar pain postoperatively. Half the cognitively intact patients who experienced moderate to very severe pain were prescribed inadequate analgesia for their level of pain. Eighty-three percent of cognitively intact patients and 76% of dementia patients did not receive a standing order for an analgesic agent. These data reveal that a majority of elderly hip fracture patients experienced undertreated pain. The fact that advanced dementia patients received one-third the amount of opioid analgesia as compared to cognitively intact subjects-40% of whom reported severe pain postoperatively-suggests that the majority of dementia patients were in severe pain postoperatively. This study and others suggest that directed interventions to improve pain detection and alter physician prescribing practices in the cognitively impaired are needed.