Establishment and Empirical Evaluation of a Quality Indicator System for Postoperative Pain Management

Postoperative pain-related outcomes and perioperative pain management in China: a population-based study

Background

Postoperative pain poses a significant challenge to the healthcare system and patient satisfaction and is associated with chronic pain and long-term narcotic use. However, systemic assessment of the quality of postoperative pain management in China remains unavailable.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data collected from a nationwide registry, China Acute Postoperative Pain Study (CAPOPS), between September 2019 and August 2021. Patients aged 18 years or above were required to complete a self-reported pain outcome questionnaire on the first postoperative day (POD1). Perioperative pain management and pain-related outcomes, including the severity of pain, adverse events caused by pain or pain management, and perception of care and satisfaction with pain management were analyzed.

Findings

A total of 26,193 adult patients were enrolled. There were 48.7% of patients who had moderate-to-severe pain on the first day after surgery, and pain severity was associated with poor recovery and patient satisfaction. The systemic opioid use was 68% on the first day after surgery, and 89% of them were used with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, while the rate of postoperative nerve blocks was low.

Interpretation

Currently, almost half of patients still suffer from moderate-to-severe pain after surgery in China. The relatively high rate of systemic opioid use and low rate of nerve blocks used after surgery suggests that more effort is needed to improve the management of acute postoperative pain in China.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2018YFC2001905).

Postoperative Pain Management Outcomes at a Chinese Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Survey

PURPOSE

Postoperative pain is one of the most common postoperative complications, and improper management not only adds to patient suffering but also affects patients' recovery. In this study, we measured patients' postoperative pain to understand the status of patients after surgery and to identify factors influencing postoperative pain.

DESIGN

A descriptive and cross-sectional study METHODS: This survey was conducted at a large tertiary hospital in Chengdu, Sichuan Province. A total of 655 postoperative inpatients were included. The survey was conducted using the Chinese version of the Houston Pain Outcome Instrument. General patient data, pain management-related factors, and the pain management index were used to survey risk factors. We used t-tests and ANOVA for univariate analysis of each pain outcome category to explore the association with the predictor variables. Then, those variables with a significance level of 0.05 on univariate analysis were entered into multivariable regression analysis to identify parsimonious subsets of independent risk factors.

FINDINGS

In this survey, 58.7% of patients experienced moderate to severe pain in the 24-hour postoperative period, and 33.6% of patients had moderate to severe average pain over the 24-hour postoperative period. The postoperative pain impact scores on patient mood, somatic function, patient satisfaction with postoperative pain management, and pain education were 3.5 ± 2.1, 4.3 ± 3.1, 8.9 ± 1.4 and 8.2 ± 1.8, respectively. The pain management index, surgery type, insurance, and pain assessment of nurse were influential factors of postoperative pain intensity. Age, ethnicity, insurance, surgery type, patents' knowledge of pain, and pain assessment of the nurse affected the patients' postoperative physiological function (F = 3.822, R² = 0.065, P = .000). In addition, area of residence and physician attitudes affected the outcomes of patient satisfaction with pain management (F = 26.652, R² = 0.259, P = .000).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of moderate to severe pain in post-surgical patients remains high, and postoperative pain affects patients physically and psychologically. Special attention should be given to patients with lower income and literacy levels.

Quality indicators for cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction in China: a consensus panel and practice test

OBJECTIVES

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves outcomes after myocardial infarction (MI), but it is underused in China. The purpose of this study was to develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) to improve clinical practices and to confirm the measurability and performance of the developed QIs for CR in Chinese patients after MI.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The QIs were developed by a Chinese expert consensus panel during in-person meetings. The five QIs most in need of improvement were selected using a national questionnaire. Finally, the completion rate and feasibility of the QIs were verified in a group of MI survivors at university hospitals in China.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen professionals participated in the consensus panel, 89 personnel in the field of CR participated in the national questionnaire and 165 MI survivors participated in the practice test.

RESULTS

A review of 17 eligible articles generated 26 potential QIs, among which 17 were selected by the consensus panel after careful evaluation. The 17 QIs were divided into two domains: (1) improving participation and adherence and (2) CR process standardisation. Nationwide telephone and WeChat surveys identified the five QIs most in need of improvement. A multicenter practice test (n=165) revealed that the mean performance value of the proposed QIs was 43.9% (9.9%-86.1%) according to patients with post-MI.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus panel identified a comprehensive set of QIs for CR in patients with post-MI. A nationwide questionnaire survey was used to identify the QIs that need immediate attention to improve the quality of CR. Although practice tests confirmed the measurability of the proposed QIs in clinical practice, the implementation of the QIs needs to be improved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study is part of a study registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03528382).