Center on Implementing Evidence-Based Practice, Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Mar;25(3):194-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1194-3. Epub 2009 Dec 15.
Researchers and quality improvement advocates sometimes use review of chart-documented pain care processes to assess the quality of pain management. Studies have found that primary care providers frequently fail to document pain assessment and management.
To assess documentation of pain care processes in an academic primary care clinic and evaluate the validity of this documentation as a measure of pain care delivered.
Prospective observational study.
237 adult patients at a university-affiliated internal medicine clinic who reported any pain in the last week.
Immediately after a visit, we asked patients to report the pain treatment they received. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) to assess pain severity at baseline and 1 month later. We extracted documentation of pain care processes from the medical record and used kappa statistics to assess agreement between documentation and patient report of pain treatment. Using multivariable linear regression, we modeled whether documented or patient-reported pain care predicted change in pain at 1 month.
Participants' mean age was 53.7 years, 66% were female, and 74% had chronic pain. Physicians documented pain assessment for 83% of visits. Patients reported receiving pain treatment more often (67%) than was documented by physicians (54%). Agreement between documentation and patient report was moderate for receiving a new pain medication (k = 0.50) and slight for receiving pain management advice (k = 0.13). In multivariable models, documentation of new pain treatment was not associated with change in pain (p = 0.134). In contrast, patient-reported receipt of new pain treatment predicted pain improvement (p = 0.005).
Chart documentation underestimated pain care delivered, compared with patient report. Documented pain care processes had no relationship with pain outcomes at 1 month, but patient report of receiving care predicted clinically significant improvement. Chart review measures may not accurately reflect the pain management patients receive in primary care.
研究人员和质量改进倡导者有时会审查图表记录的疼痛护理过程,以评估疼痛管理的质量。研究发现,初级保健提供者经常未能记录疼痛评估和管理。
评估学术初级保健诊所中疼痛护理过程的记录情况,并评估该记录作为衡量疼痛护理提供的有效性。
前瞻性观察研究。
在一家大学附属医院的内科诊所就诊并在过去一周报告有任何疼痛的 237 名成年患者。
就诊后立即,我们询问患者他们接受的疼痛治疗。患者填写简明疼痛量表(BPI)以评估基线和 1 个月后的疼痛严重程度。我们从病历中提取疼痛护理过程的记录,并使用kappa 统计评估记录和患者报告的疼痛治疗之间的一致性。使用多变量线性回归,我们建立模型以评估记录或患者报告的疼痛护理是否预测 1 个月时的疼痛变化。
参与者的平均年龄为 53.7 岁,66%为女性,74%有慢性疼痛。医生记录了 83%的就诊时的疼痛评估。患者报告接受疼痛治疗的频率(67%)高于医生记录的(54%)。记录和患者报告在接受新的疼痛药物治疗方面的一致性为中度(k=0.50),在接受疼痛管理建议方面的一致性为轻度(k=0.13)。在多变量模型中,新的疼痛治疗记录与疼痛变化无关(p=0.134)。相比之下,患者报告接受新的疼痛治疗预测疼痛改善(p=0.005)。
与患者报告相比,图表记录低估了提供的疼痛护理。记录的疼痛护理过程与 1 个月时的疼痛结果没有关系,但患者报告接受护理预测有临床显著改善。图表审查措施可能无法准确反映患者在初级保健中接受的疼痛管理。