Does Screening for Pain Correspond to High Quality Care for Veterans?

Routine numeric screening for pain is widely recommended, but its association with overall quality of pain care is unclear. To assess adherence to measures of pain management quality and identify associated patient and provider factors. A cross-sectional visit-based study. One hundred and forty adult VA outpatient primary care clinic patients reporting a numeric rating scale (NRS) of moderate to severe pain (four or more on a zero to ten scale). Seventy-seven providers completed a baseline survey regarding general pain management attitudes and a post-visit survey regarding management of 112 participating patients. We used chart review to determine adherence to four validated process quality indicators (QIs) including noting pain presence, pain character, and pain control, and intensifying pharmacological intervention. The average NRS was 6.7. Seventy-three percent of charts noted the presence of pain, 13.9% the character, 23.6% the degree of control, and 15.3% increased pain medication prescription. Charts were more likely to include documentation of pain presence if providers agreed that “patients want me to ask about pain” and “pain can have negative consequences on patient’s functioning”. Charts were more likely to document character of pain if providers agreed that “patients are able to rate their pain”. Patients with musculoskeletal pain were less likely to have chart documentation of character of pain. Despite routine pain screening in VA, providers seldom documented elements considered important to evaluation and treatment of pain. Improving pain care may require attention to all aspects of pain management, not just screening

Heart Failure, the Hidden Problem of Pain

Although dyspnea and fatigue are hallmark symptoms of heart failure (HF), the burden of pain may be underrecognized. This study assessed pain in HF and identified contributing factors. As part of a multicenter study, 96 veterans with HF (96% male, 67+/-11 years) completed measures of symptoms, pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), functional status (Functional Morbidity Index), and psychological state (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2). Single items from the BPI interference and the quality of life-end of life measured social and spiritual well-being. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained by chart audit. Correlation and linear regression models evaluated physical, emotional, social, and spiritual factors associated with pain. Fifty-three (55.2%) HF patients reported pain, with a majority (36 [37.5%]) rating their pain as moderate to severe (pain>or=4/10). The presence of pain was reported more frequently than dyspnea (67 [71.3%] vs. 58 [61.7%]). Age (P=0.02), psychological (depression: P=0.002; anxiety: P=0.001), social (P<0.001), spiritual (P=0.010), and physical (health status: P=0.001; symptom frequency: P=0.000; functional status: P=0.002) well-being were correlated with pain severity. In the resulting model, 38% of the variance in pain severity was explained (P<0.001); interference with relations (P<0.001) and symptom number (P=0.007) contributed to pain severity. The association of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains with pain suggests that multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address the complex nature of pain in HF

A comparative study of pain in heart failure and non-heart failure veterans.

BackgroundProgress has been made in addressing pain in specific diseases such as cancer, but less attention has focused on understanding pain in nonmalignant states, including heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsFrom March 2006 to June 2007, 672 veterans were surveyed and scores for the Brief Pain Inventory, pain distress, clinically significant pain levels (moderate to severe pain), and pain locations were compared using univariate and multivariate models. Fifteen percent of the final sample had HF (95/634). In our study, the HF patients were older (P < .000), reported lower levels of general health (P = .018), had more co-morbidities (P < .000), were more likely to have a history of cancer (P = .035), and suffered more chest pain and fewer headaches (P = .026, P = .03, respectively) than their non-HF cohorts. When controlling for age, co-morbidity and cancer disorders, HF and non-HF patients did not differ in pain severity, interference, distress or locations. Of the patients currently experiencing pain, 67.3% of HF patients and 68.4% of non-HF patients rated their pain as moderate or severe (pain >or=4 on a 0 to 10 scale).ConclusionsAlthough HF has not been identified as a painful condition, this study suggests the burden of pain is significant for both HF and non-HF ambulatory care patients

A comparative study of pain in heart failure and non-heart failure veterans.

BackgroundProgress has been made in addressing pain in specific diseases such as cancer, but less attention has focused on understanding pain in nonmalignant states, including heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsFrom March 2006 to June 2007, 672 veterans were surveyed and scores for the Brief Pain Inventory, pain distress, clinically significant pain levels (moderate to severe pain), and pain locations were compared using univariate and multivariate models. Fifteen percent of the final sample had HF (95/634). In our study, the HF patients were older (P < .000), reported lower levels of general health (P = .018), had more co-morbidities (P < .000), were more likely to have a history of cancer (P = .035), and suffered more chest pain and fewer headaches (P = .026, P = .03, respectively) than their non-HF cohorts. When controlling for age, co-morbidity and cancer disorders, HF and non-HF patients did not differ in pain severity, interference, distress or locations. Of the patients currently experiencing pain, 67.3% of HF patients and 68.4% of non-HF patients rated their pain as moderate or severe (pain >or=4 on a 0 to 10 scale).ConclusionsAlthough HF has not been identified as a painful condition, this study suggests the burden of pain is significant for both HF and non-HF ambulatory care patients