Improving patients' pain experience in a large rural hospital

Pain Assessment Disparities by Race, Ethnicity, and Language in Adult Hospitalized Patients

AIM

Nurses assess patients' pain using several validated tools. It is not known what disparities exist in pain assessment for medicine inpatients. Our purpose was to measure differences in pain assessment across patient characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and language status.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of adult general medicine inpatients from 2013 to 2021. The primary exposures were race/ethnicity and limited English proficiency (LEP) status. The primary outcomes were 1) the type and odds of which pain assessment tool nursing used and 2) the relationship between pain assessments and daily opioid administration.

RESULTS

Of 51,602 patient hospitalizations, 46.1% were white, 17.4% Black, 16.5% Asian, and 13.2% Latino. 13.2% of patients had LEP. The most common pain assessment tool was the Numeric Rating Scale (68.1%), followed by the Verbal Descriptor Scale (23.7%). Asian patients and patients with LEP were less likely to have their pain documented numerically. In multivariable logistic regression, patients with LEP (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.65) and Asian patients (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.78) had the lowest odds of numeric ratings. Latino, Multi-Racial, and patients classified as Other also had lower odds than white patients of numeric ratings. Asian patients and patients with LEP received the fewest daily opioids across all pain assessment categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Asian patients and patients with LEP were less likely than other patient groups to have a numeric pain assessment and received the fewest opioids. These inequities may serve as the basis for the development of equitable pain assessment protocols.

Phase 2 Assessment of a New Functional Pain Scale by Comparing It to Traditional Pain Scales

Background

Assessment of pain has always been subjective and is commonly assessed using a numeric pain scale (NPS) or Wong-Baker faces scale. The pain intensity score is not standardized and relies on individuals’ past experiences. The disadvantage of using such pain assessment scales and treating the numbers can lead to overdosing on analgesics leading to unwanted side effects. The Robert Packer Hospital/Functional Pain Scale (RPH/FPS) was developed as a tool for the objective assessment of pain and its impact on a patient’s function. 

Aim

The study aimed to validate the RPH/FPS scale against NPS and Wong-Baker faces scale in medical, surgical, and trauma patients. The patients’ were also asked to rank the scales as one (1) being the most preferred to three (3) being the least preferred.

Design

This prospective, observational cohort study compares the two most common pain scales, the NPS and the Wong-Baker Faces, to the RPH/FPS.

Methods

Spearman correlation was used to test for correlation between the three scales, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare means between the RPH/FPS and NPS. The study participants were also asked to rate their preferences for the scales by rating the most preferred of the three scales as one (1) and the least preferred number three (3). 

Results

The RPH/FPS had a strong correlation with both the NPS and Wong-Baker Faces scales (RPH/FPS vs. NPS R=0.69, p<0.001: RPH-FPS vs. Wong-Baker Faces R=0.69, P<0.001). As for preferences, the RPH/FPS was ranked first on 36.9% of the surveys followed by NPS on 35.9%, and the Wong-Baker Faces on 22.3%. There were 4.9% of the surveys missing the preference rankings.

Conclusion

The results validate the RPH/FPS scale against the NPS and Wong-Baker Faces scales. This gives the clinicians a tool for objective assessment of pain and its effect on the recovery process, thereby minimizing the observed disconnect that sometimes happens between the reported pain intensity level and the providers' observation of the patient.

Assessment of Functional Pain Score by Comparing to Traditional Pain Scores

Background: Pain assessments, such as the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS) and Wong-Baker FACEs (FACEs), offer methods to quantify pain with simplistic descriptions on a scale of 0-10 or facial expressions. These tools have limitations and deliver insufficient information to the provider developing a pain management plan. A new Functional Pain Scale (FPS) assesses other scopes of pain, including the loss of function in activities of daily living, sleep habits, and communication. Although NPS and FACEs are traditionally used in clinical practice, FPS provides a functional assessment to help patients self-report their pain to their providers. 

Aim: Our study attempts to show a comparative data analysis of the FPS to NPS and FACEs. The purpose of our study is not to demonstrate FPS's superiority over NPS and FACEs but to fill the gaps of information necessary to communicate the type of pain a patient has to their provider. Due to its descriptive nature and clear scores, FPS should be implemented within electronic medical records (EMR) to help providers assess patients’ pain and evaluate the efficacy of interventions selected based on that pain.

Design: A prospective, observational, single-center, cohort study was performed, with simultaneously administered surveys to compare pains scores on a new FPS to the common NPS and FACEs. The target sample was postoperative orthopedic patients above 18 years of age who can read and speak English. Patients were surveyed on all three pain scales: FPS, NPS, and FACEs and were asked to rate their pain perioperatively after their respective orthopedic procedures.

Methods: Spearman correlation method was used to test for correlation between the three pain scales and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare means between FPS and NPS.

Results: FPS has a strong correlation with FACEs (r = 0.647, p<0.05) and with NPS (r = 0.634, p<0.05). There is a significant difference in mean scores between FPS and NPS.

Conclusion and study implications: The most reliable marker of pain is patient self-reporting. In routine assessment, because pain is one-dimensional, we as providers need to better define the range of 0-10. This can only be done via an algorithm regarding which functions are lost as pain intensities increase. FPS fits those requirements by offering suitable descriptions with each pain score. The implications of the study include a chance to remedy the opioid crisis that plagues healthcare. We need tools that assess and educate patients about their pain level and appropriately convey that information to providers. Furthermore, this study is a chance for innovative tools to be implemented to better change healthcare practice. If FPS gains traction, it can improve pain communication between patients and providers.