2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2010.00167.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

General pain assessment among patients with cancer in an acute care setting: a best practice implementation project

Abstract: The project had shown that pre- and post-implementation audits represent a useful method for translating evidence into practice. The conduct of this project showed that achieving change in clinical practice was challenging. It also showed that positive audit results were achieved through the enthusiasm, commitment and dedication of every member of the project team, the use of champions who were involved in direct patient care and performance feedback.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
6

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
22
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…). Ang and Chow () used the Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (PACES) and Getting Research into Practice (GRIP) programmes. Nine papers reported interventions that had been developed for the present study: three by the researchers, one by the researchers with input from practical experts in infection control, four by multi‐professional teams and one by a work group that had formulated the applied guideline.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…). Ang and Chow () used the Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (PACES) and Getting Research into Practice (GRIP) programmes. Nine papers reported interventions that had been developed for the present study: three by the researchers, one by the researchers with input from practical experts in infection control, four by multi‐professional teams and one by a work group that had formulated the applied guideline.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE One possible explanation for why pain assessment tools have produced a mixed picture in terms of improving pain recognition, assessment and management (Ang and Chow, 2010, Haller et al, 2011, Idvall and Ehrenberg, 2002, Purser et al, 2014, Rockett, 2010, particularly in patients with dementia, may be because they have been developed with a view that the process can be characterized in a sequential, linear fashion (system 2 processing) rather than acknowledging the prevalence of more intuitive subconscious approaches to judgment and decision making (system 1), characteristic of preferred mode of decision making (Parke, 1998). Additionally, assessment tools also only focus on one part of the pain recognition, assessment and management process (the assessment) assuming that once pain has been identified decisions regarding interventions and subsequent actions will be taken automatically .…”
Section: Pain Management As a Decision Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several strategies were employed in the execution of this project. The enthusiasm and cooperation shown by the team members and the ward nurses facilitated the completion of this project 8 . Secondly, using a concise flowchart to explain the new workflow enhanced the effectiveness of communication.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Secondly, using a concise flowchart to explain the new workflow enhanced the effectiveness of communication. It enabled the nurses to have a better understanding as the flow chart illustrated the critical steps in hand hygiene 8 . Thirdly, two education sessions were conducted to ensure that more nurses had the opportunity to attend them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%