Screening and Audit as Service-Level Strategies to Support Implementation of Australian Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management in Adults: A Feasibility Study

Melanie Lovell, Mary Rose Birch, Tim Luckett, Jane Phillips, Patricia M Davidson, Meera Agar, Frances Boyle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Pain in people with cancer is common but often under-recognized and under-treated. Guidelines can improve the quality of pain care, but need targeted strategies to support implementation. Aim: To test the feasibility of two service-level strategies for supporting guideline implementation: a screening system and medical record audit. Design: Multimethods. Setting: One oncology outpatient service, and one palliative care outpatient and inpatient service. Participants: Patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients were screened in the waiting room with a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised either electronically or in paper-based format. Feasibility indicated the percentage of patients successfully screened from the total number attending the services. An audit assessed adherence to key indicators of pain assessment and management. Feasibility thresholds were set at 75% incidence for screening and a median of 30 minutes per patient for audit. Results: Of 452 patient visits, 95% (n = 429) were successfully screened, 34% (n = 155) electronically and 61% (n = 274) paper-based. Electronic pain screening was technically challenging and time-intensive for nurses. Thirty-one patients consented to have their records audited. The median audit time was 37.5 minutes (range 10-120 minutes). Variability arose from the number and type of record (outpatient or inpatient). Adherence to indicators varied from 63% (pain assessment at first presentation) to 94% (regular pain assessment and medication prescribed at regular intervals). Conclusions: This study confirmed the need to implement evidence-based guidelines for cancer pain and generated useful insights into the feasibility of pain screening and audit.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPain Management Nursing
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Feasibility Studies
Pain Management
Guidelines
Pain Measurement
Pain
Ambulatory Care
Inpatients
Medical Audit
Symptom Assessment
Quality of Health Care
Palliative Care
Medical Records
Cancer Pain
Neoplasms
Outpatients
Nurses
Incidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Advanced and Specialized Nursing

Cite this

Screening and Audit as Service-Level Strategies to Support Implementation of Australian Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management in Adults : A Feasibility Study. / Lovell, Melanie; Birch, Mary Rose; Luckett, Tim; Phillips, Jane; Davidson, Patricia M; Agar, Meera; Boyle, Frances.

In: Pain Management Nursing, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1418a94ffb014e60acb1787c005bb888,
title = "Screening and Audit as Service-Level Strategies to Support Implementation of Australian Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management in Adults: A Feasibility Study",
abstract = "Background: Pain in people with cancer is common but often under-recognized and under-treated. Guidelines can improve the quality of pain care, but need targeted strategies to support implementation. Aim: To test the feasibility of two service-level strategies for supporting guideline implementation: a screening system and medical record audit. Design: Multimethods. Setting: One oncology outpatient service, and one palliative care outpatient and inpatient service. Participants: Patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients were screened in the waiting room with a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised either electronically or in paper-based format. Feasibility indicated the percentage of patients successfully screened from the total number attending the services. An audit assessed adherence to key indicators of pain assessment and management. Feasibility thresholds were set at 75{\%} incidence for screening and a median of 30 minutes per patient for audit. Results: Of 452 patient visits, 95{\%} (n = 429) were successfully screened, 34{\%} (n = 155) electronically and 61{\%} (n = 274) paper-based. Electronic pain screening was technically challenging and time-intensive for nurses. Thirty-one patients consented to have their records audited. The median audit time was 37.5 minutes (range 10-120 minutes). Variability arose from the number and type of record (outpatient or inpatient). Adherence to indicators varied from 63{\%} (pain assessment at first presentation) to 94{\%} (regular pain assessment and medication prescribed at regular intervals). Conclusions: This study confirmed the need to implement evidence-based guidelines for cancer pain and generated useful insights into the feasibility of pain screening and audit.",
author = "Melanie Lovell and Birch, {Mary Rose} and Tim Luckett and Jane Phillips and Davidson, {Patricia M} and Meera Agar and Frances Boyle",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.pmn.2018.05.004",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Pain Management Nursing",
issn = "1524-9042",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening and Audit as Service-Level Strategies to Support Implementation of Australian Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management in Adults

T2 - A Feasibility Study

AU - Lovell, Melanie

AU - Birch, Mary Rose

AU - Luckett, Tim

AU - Phillips, Jane

AU - Davidson, Patricia M

AU - Agar, Meera

AU - Boyle, Frances

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Background: Pain in people with cancer is common but often under-recognized and under-treated. Guidelines can improve the quality of pain care, but need targeted strategies to support implementation. Aim: To test the feasibility of two service-level strategies for supporting guideline implementation: a screening system and medical record audit. Design: Multimethods. Setting: One oncology outpatient service, and one palliative care outpatient and inpatient service. Participants: Patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients were screened in the waiting room with a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised either electronically or in paper-based format. Feasibility indicated the percentage of patients successfully screened from the total number attending the services. An audit assessed adherence to key indicators of pain assessment and management. Feasibility thresholds were set at 75% incidence for screening and a median of 30 minutes per patient for audit. Results: Of 452 patient visits, 95% (n = 429) were successfully screened, 34% (n = 155) electronically and 61% (n = 274) paper-based. Electronic pain screening was technically challenging and time-intensive for nurses. Thirty-one patients consented to have their records audited. The median audit time was 37.5 minutes (range 10-120 minutes). Variability arose from the number and type of record (outpatient or inpatient). Adherence to indicators varied from 63% (pain assessment at first presentation) to 94% (regular pain assessment and medication prescribed at regular intervals). Conclusions: This study confirmed the need to implement evidence-based guidelines for cancer pain and generated useful insights into the feasibility of pain screening and audit.

AB - Background: Pain in people with cancer is common but often under-recognized and under-treated. Guidelines can improve the quality of pain care, but need targeted strategies to support implementation. Aim: To test the feasibility of two service-level strategies for supporting guideline implementation: a screening system and medical record audit. Design: Multimethods. Setting: One oncology outpatient service, and one palliative care outpatient and inpatient service. Participants: Patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients were screened in the waiting room with a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised either electronically or in paper-based format. Feasibility indicated the percentage of patients successfully screened from the total number attending the services. An audit assessed adherence to key indicators of pain assessment and management. Feasibility thresholds were set at 75% incidence for screening and a median of 30 minutes per patient for audit. Results: Of 452 patient visits, 95% (n = 429) were successfully screened, 34% (n = 155) electronically and 61% (n = 274) paper-based. Electronic pain screening was technically challenging and time-intensive for nurses. Thirty-one patients consented to have their records audited. The median audit time was 37.5 minutes (range 10-120 minutes). Variability arose from the number and type of record (outpatient or inpatient). Adherence to indicators varied from 63% (pain assessment at first presentation) to 94% (regular pain assessment and medication prescribed at regular intervals). Conclusions: This study confirmed the need to implement evidence-based guidelines for cancer pain and generated useful insights into the feasibility of pain screening and audit.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050147883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85050147883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pmn.2018.05.004

DO - 10.1016/j.pmn.2018.05.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 30448191

AN - SCOPUS:85050147883

JO - Pain Management Nursing

JF - Pain Management Nursing

SN - 1524-9042

ER -