Pain assessment charts in the management of chronic cancer pain

Walker, V.A.; Dicks, Barbara; Webb, Pat

doi:10.1177/026921638700100204

Cited by 13 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it has been reported that when nurses are instructed to monitor pain on a daily basis, they ®nd it useful and applicable to nursing practice (Berker & Hughes 1990, Scott 1994. Walker (1987) studied the use of pain assessment charts in the management of chronic cancer pain, and found that 89% of the 37 nurses indicated that the chart was a valuable tool for pain assessment. Wit et al (1991Wit et al ( , 1992 questioned nurses (n 14) in a cancer hospital about daily pain assessment 6 months after implementation of pain ratings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Daily pain assessment: value for nurses and patients

Rond

Wit

Dam

et al. 1999

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current guidelines for pain management recommend systematic assessment of pain. A few standardized tools exist for the daily assessment of pain intensity, for example the numeric rating scale or visual analogue scale, yet these instruments are rarely used by nurses. In the study reported in this paper, a numeric rating scale accompanied by an educational programme for nurses, was implemented in three hospitals. The paper describes the feasibility of daily pain assessment from the nurses' and patients' perspective in multiple settings. The outcomes studied were the professional compliance of nurses with daily pain assessment, and the value of daily pain assessment for both nurses and patients. The results show that nurses' compliance with daily pain assessment is high (73.9%) and that daily pain assessment is feasible and valued by nurses; however, differences between the three hospitals and two specialties (medical vs. surgical wards) were found. Although patients have difficulty with expressing their pain by use of a number, almost all patients are able to give a pain score and a majority is positive about daily pain assessment. From this study it can be concluded that daily pain assessment is practical and appreciated by nurses as well as patients, but attuning the implementation protocol to the needs of the specific setting is necessary.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Daily pain assessment: value for nurses and patients

Rond

Wit

Dam

et al. 1999

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 Patients beliefs about pain 22 and the data obtained from the regular use of pain charts have never been collected. 23,24 It would be worthwhile testing such concepts and instruments in the field of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases.…”

Section: Pain Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases

Dawson

Currow

Stevens

et al. 1999

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain from bone metastases is a common problem in patients with advanced cancer, and radiotherapy plays an important role in its palliation. Single fraction treatments are often prescribed, but there is no clear consensus on this issue and clinical practice shows significant variability. This situation is unsatisfactory for all patients--the patient, the clinician, and the health care administrator. Randomized trials may use poor outcome measures and this contributes to practice variability. The credibility of outcome studies is often reduced due to poor study design, small sample sizes, and the use of endpoints that are both unreliable and unsuitable. The endpoints used have been narrowly defined, the patient's perspective has generally been overlooked, and quality of life has only once been used as an endpoint. A review of the current literature suggests that instruments specific to bone metastases are required. These must be based on patient experience, and rely on self-report. In addition, there is a need to understand the relative priority that patients attribute to treatment outcomes. The use of better instruments and methodologies in future trials will enhance the credibility of results and reduce practice variations.

show abstract