IMPORTANCE Although pain is among the most common symptoms reported by patients, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face substantial challenges identifying and assessing pain.OBJECTIVE To evaluate a 2-step process for chronic pain screening and follow-up in primary care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA cross-sectional study of patients with a primary care visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, was conducted at a statewide, multisite federally qualified health center. Participants included 68 PCPs and 58 medical assistants from 13 sites who implemented the screening process in primary care, and 38 866 patients aged 18 years or older with a primary care visit during that time.EXPOSURES Single-question assessment of pain frequency, followed by a 3-question PEG (pain, enjoyment of life, general activity) functional assessment for patients with chronic pain. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESAdherence to a 2-step chronic pain screening and PEG process, proportion of patients with positive screening results, mean PEG pain severity greater than or equal to 7, and documented chronic painful condition diagnosis in patient's electronic health record between 1 year before and 90 days after screening. RESULTS Of 38 866 patients with a primary care visit, 31 600 patients (81.3%) underwent screening. Mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years, and most were aged 35 to 54 years (12 987 [41.1%]), female (18 436 [58.3%]), Hispanic (14 809 [46.9%]), and English-speaking (22 519 [71.3%]), and had Medicaid insurance (18 442 [58.4%]). A total of 10 262 participants (32.5%) screened positive and, of these, 9701 (94.5%) completed the PEG questionnaire. PEG responses indicated severe pain interference with activities of daily living (PEG Ն7) in 5735 (59.1%) participants. A chronic painful condition had not been diagnosed in 4257 (43.9%) patients in the year before screening. A new chronic painful condition was diagnosed at screening or within 90 days in 2250 (52.9%) patients.Care teams found the workflow acceptable, but cited lengthy administration time, challenges with comprehension of the PEG questions, and limited comprehensiveness as implementation barriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEA systematic, 2-step process for chronic pain screening and functional assessment in primary care appeared to identify patients with previously undocumented chronic pain and was feasible to implement. Patient-provided information on the frequency of pain, pain level, and pain interference can help improve the assessment and monitoring of pain in primary care.

Purpose To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care. Patients and Methods Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening and functional assessment for all adults in primary care. The study group included 10,091 adults aged 18+ who had an in-person visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, where they screened positive for chronic pain and completed a 3-question functional assessment with the PEG (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity). Multivariate logistic regressions quantified associations between pain frequency, diagnosis and treatment, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and self-reported severe pain impairment with pain diagnoses and treatment documented after screening. Results Patients were mostly women (60.3%), Latinx (41.1%), English-speaking (80.1%), and Medicaid-insured (62.0%); they averaged 49.1 years old (SD = 13.7 years). Patients with severe pain impairment or who were Latinx were more likely to get a newly documented pain diagnosis (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 13.2% and 8.6%, ps < 0.0001), while patients with mental health/substance use or medical comorbidities were less likely (ARDs: −20.0% to −6.2%, ps < 0.001). Factors most consistently associated with treatment were prior treatment of the same modality (4 of 7 treatments, ARDs = 27.3% to 44.1%, ps <0.0001), new pain diagnosis (5 of 7, ARDs = 3.2% to 27.4%, ps <0.001), and severe impairment (4 of 7, ARDs = 2.6% to 6.5%, ps < 0.0001). A new diagnosis had the strongest association with non-opioid pain analgesics and physical medicine (ARD = 27.0% and 27.4%, p < 0.0001). Latinx patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesics and mental health/substance use medications and counseling (ARDs = −3.3% to 7.5%, ps <0.0001). Conclusion Screening and assessment with patient-reported tools may influence pain care. Care for Latinx patients differed from non-Latinx white patients.