Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov-Dec;19(6):309-12.
doi: 10.1155/2014/180212. Epub 2014 Aug 6.

Initial pain management plans in response to severe pain indicators on oncology clinic previsit questionnaires

Initial pain management plans in response to severe pain indicators on oncology clinic previsit questionnaires

Michael S Sanatani et al. Pain Res Manag. 2014 Nov-Dec.

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The issue of how to address patient pain in the outpatient setting remains challenging. At the London Regional Cancer Program (London, Ontario), patients complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) before most visits.

Objectives: To perform a chart review assessing the frequency and, if applicable, the type of a clinical care plan that was developed if a patient indicated pain ≥7 on a 10-point scale.

Methods: The charts of 100 eligible sequential outpatient visits were reviewed and the initial pain management approaches were documented.

Results: Between December 2011 and May 2012, visits by 7265 unique patients included 100 eligible visits (pain ≥7 of 10). In 83 cases, active pain management plans, ranging from counselling to hospital admission, were proposed. Active pain management plans were more likely if the cause was believed to be cancer⁄treatment related: 63 of 65 (96.9%) versus 20 of 35&nbsp;(57.1%, noncancer⁄unknown pain cause); P<0.001. There were no differences depending on cancer treatment intent or medical service.

Conclusions: Active pain management plans were documented in 83% of visits. However, patients who reported severe pain that was assessed as benign or unknown in etiology received intervention less frequently, perhaps indicating that oncologists either consider themselves less responsible for noncancer pain, or believe that pain chronicity may lead to a higher ESAS pain score without indicating a need for acute intervention. Further study is needed to determine the subsequent effect of the care plans on patient-reported ESAS pain scores at future clinic visits.

HISTORIQUE :: Il est toujours difficile de soulager la douleur des patients en milieu ambulatoire. Au programme régional sur le cancer de London, en Ontario, les patients remplissent l’échelle ESAS d’évaluation des symptômes d’Edmonton avant la plupart des visites.

OBJECTIFS :: Effectuer un examen des dossiers pour évaluer la fréquence et s’il y a lieu, le type de plan de soins cliniques élaboré si le patient déclarait une douleur d’au moins sept sur une échelle de dix points.

MÉTHODOLOGIE :: Les chercheurs ont examiné les dossiers de 100 visites séquentielles de patients admissibles en milieu ambulatoire et consigné les approches initiales de gestion de la douleur.

RÉSULTATS :: Entre décembre 2011 et mai 2012, 100 des 7 265 visites uniques de patients étaient admissibles (douleur d’au moins sept sur dix). Dans 83 cas, des plans de gestion active de la douleur oscillant entre des conseils et une hospitalisation étaient proposés. Ces plans étaient plus probables si on croyait la cause liée au cancer ou au traitement : 63 sur 65 (96,9 %) plutôt que 20 sur 35 (57,1 %, cause non cancéreuse ou d’origine inconnue); P<0,001. Il n’y avait pas de différences selon l’intention de traiter le cancer ou le service médical.

CONCLUSIONS :: Les plans de gestion active de la douleur étaient inscrits au dossier de 83 % des visites. Cependant, on intervenait moins auprès des patients qui déclaraient des douleurs intenses dont l’étiologie était évaluée comme bénigne ou d’origine inconnue. Ainsi, les oncologues se considéraient peut-être comme moins responsables des douleurs non cancéreuses ou croyaient peut-être qu’une douleur chronique s’associait à un indice de douleur élevé sur l’échelle ESAS ne nécessitant pas d’intervention rapide. D’autres recherches s’imposent pour déterminer l’effet subséquent des plans de soins sur les résultats de la douleur déclarée par les patients d’après l’échelle ESAS lors de futures visites à la clinique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cleeland C, Gonin R, Hatfield AK, et al. Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:592–6. - PubMed
    1. Shvartzman P, Friger M, Shani A, Barak F, Yoram C, Singer Y. Pain control in ambulatory cancer patients – can we do better? J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003;26:716–22. - PubMed
    1. Deandrea S, Montanari M, Moja L, Apolone G. Prevalence of undertreatment in cancer pain. A review of published literature. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1985–91. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mitera G, Zeiadin N, Kirou-Mauro A, et al. Retrospective assessment of cancer pain management in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic using the Pain Management Index. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;39:259–67. - PubMed
    1. Kirou-Mauro AM, Hird A, Wong J, et al. Has pain management in cancer patients with bone metastases improved? A seven-year review at an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37:77–84. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources