uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Why is pain still not being assessed adequately?: Results of a pain prevalence study in a university hospital in Sweden
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Caring Sciences. (Vårdvetenskap)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Education in Nursing.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences. (Vårdvetenskap)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Journal of Clinical Nursing, ISSN 0962-1067, E-ISSN 1365-2702, Vol. 20, no 5-6, 624-634 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aim.

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pain and pain assessment among inpatients in a university hospital.

Background.

Pain management could be considered an indicator of quality of care. Few studies report on prevalence measures including all inpatients.

Design.

Quantitative and explorative.

Method. Survey. Results.

Of the inpatients at the hospital who answered the survey, 494 (65%) reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 81% rated their pain > 3 and 42 center dot 1% rated their pain > 7. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 38 center dot 7% had been asked to self-assess their pain using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); 29 center dot 6% of the patients were completely satisfied, and 11 center dot 5% were not at all satisfied with their participation in pain management.

Conclusions.

The result showed that too many patients are still suffering from pain and that the NRS is not used to the extent it should be. Efforts to overcome under-implementation of pain assessment are required, particularly on wards where pain is not obvious, e.g., wards that do not deal with surgery patients. Work to improve pain management must be carried out through collaboration across professional groups. Relevance to clinical practice. Using a pain assessment tool such as the NRS could help patients express their pain and improve communication between nurses and patients in relation to pain as well as allow patients to participate in their own care. Carrying out prevalence pain measures similar to those used here could be helpful in performing quality improvement work in the area of pain management.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 20, no 5-6, 624-634 p.
Keyword [en]
pain assessment, pain management, pain prevalence, quality improvement, quality indicator
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-151670DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03482.xISI: 000287363700004OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-151670DiVA: diva2:410870
Available from: 2011-04-15 Created: 2011-04-15 Last updated: 2017-12-11

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Wadensten, BarbroSwenne, Christine L.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wadensten, BarbroSwenne, Christine L.
By organisation
Caring SciencesEducation in NursingDepartment of Public Health and Caring SciencesAnaesthesiology and Intensive Care
In the same journal
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 482 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf