4.4 Article

Exploring Alternative Approaches to Routine Outpatient Pain Screening

Journal

PAIN MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages 1291-1299

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00709.x

Keywords

Ambulatory Care; Veterans; Pain; Measurement

Funding

  1. VA Health Services Research and Development (HSRD) Service [IIR 03-150]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To evaluate potential alternatives to the numeric rating scale (NRS) for routine pain screening. Design. Cross-sectional. Setting. Nineteen Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics in Southern California at two hospitals and six community sites. Patients. Five hundred twenty-eight veterans from primary care, cardiology, and oncology clinics sampled in proportion to the total number of visits made to each clinic during the previous year. Methods. Veterans were approached following clinic visits to complete researcher-administered surveys about their clinic experience. Using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference scale of >= 5 as a reference standard for important unrelieved pain, we evaluated potential alternative pain screening items and item combinations by analyzing sensitivity and specificity, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and likelihood ratios. Results. Of the veterans, 43.6% had unrelieved pain as measured by the reference standard. Approximately half had painful musculoskeletal diagnoses and one-third had comorbid mental health or substance use disorders. The fifth vital sign detected pain less accurately than did an NRS with a 1-week timeframe and an item assessing pain-related bother over the past week. AUCs were 0.79, 0.86, and 0.86, respectively. A sequential approach combining the pain-related bother and NRS with a 1-week timeframe items had good discriminatory ability. Conclusions. Alternative single or combined pain screening strategies assessing pain-related bother may improve routine pain detection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available