Health care professionals' pain narratives in hospitalized children's medical records. Part 1: pain descriptors

A Quality Improvement Project on Pain Management at a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital

To assess and improve pain management practices for hospitalized children in an urban tertiary pediatric teaching hospital.

METHODS

Health Quality Ontario Quality Improvement (QI) framework informed this study. A pre (T1) - post (T2) intervention assessment included chart reviews and children/caregiver surveys to ascertain pain management practices. Information on self-reported pain intensity, painful procedures, pain treatment and satisfaction were obtained from children/caregivers. Documented pain assessment, pain scores, and pharmacological/non-pharmacological pain treatments were collected by chart review. T1 data was fed back to pediatric units to inform their decisions and pain management targets.

RESULTS

At T1, 51 (58% of eligible participants) children/caregivers participated. At T2, 86 (97%) chart reviews and 51 (54%) children/caregivers surveys were completed. Most children/caregivers at T1 (78%) and T2 (80%) reported moderate to severe pain during their hospitalization. A mean of 2.6 painful procedures were documented in the previous 24 h, with the most common being needle-related procedures at both T1 and T2. Pain management strategies were infrequently used during needle-related procedures at both time points.

CONCLUSION

No improvements in pain management as measured by the T1 and T2 data occurred. Findings informed further pain management initiatives in the participating hospital.

Documentation of breakthrough pain in narrative clinical records of children with life-limiting conditions: Feasibility of a retrospective review

This study explored the feasibility of generating reliable information on the frequency, nature and management of breakthrough pain (BTP) in children with life-limiting conditions and life-threatening illnesses (LTIs) from narrative clinical records. In the absence of standardized ways for documenting BTP, we conducted a consensus exercise to develop a glossary of terms that could denote BTP in the records. Thirteen clinicians who contributed to the records reached consensus on 45 terms which could denote BTP, while emphasizing the importance of contextual information. The results of this approach together with guidance for improving the reliability of retrospective reviews informed a data extraction instrument. A pilot test of this instrument showed poor agreement between raters. Given the challenges encountered, we do not recommend a retrospective review of BTP using narrative records. This study highlighted challenges of data extraction for complex symptoms such as BTP from narrative clinical records. For both clinical and research purposes, the recording of complex symptoms such as BTP would benefit from clear criteria for applying definitions, a more structured format and the inclusion of validated assessment tools. This study also showed the value of consensus exercises in improving understanding and interpretation of clinical notes within a service.