IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v20y2011i5-6p624-634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why is pain still not being assessed adequately? Results of a pain prevalence study in a university hospital in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Barbro Wadensten
  • Camilla Fröjd
  • Christine L Swenne
  • Torsten Gordh
  • Lena Gunningberg

Abstract

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 42·1% rated their pain >7. Of the patients who reported having experienced pain during the preceding 24 hours, 38·7% had been asked to self‐assess their pain using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); 29·6% of the patients were completely satisfied, and 11·5% 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbro Wadensten & Camilla Fröjd & Christine L Swenne & Torsten Gordh & Lena Gunningberg, 2011. "Why is pain still not being assessed adequately? Results of a pain prevalence study in a university hospital in Sweden," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5‐6), pages 624-634, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:5-6:p:624-634
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03482.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03482.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03482.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eirin Sigurdssøn Ludvigsen & Øystein Øygarden Flæten & Caryl L Gay & Magnus TarAngen & Tove Irene Granheim & Anners Lerdal, 2016. "Pain and concomitant symptoms in medical and elective surgical inpatients: a point prevalence survey," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(21-22), pages 3229-3240, November.
    2. Kristiina Heikkilä & Anna Axelin & Laura‐Maria Peltonen & Juho Heimonen & Pauliina Anttila & Timo Viljanen & Tapio Salakoski & Sanna Salanterä, 2019. "Pain process of patients with cardiac surgery—Semantic annotation of electronic patient record data," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1555-1567, May.
    3. Julie Gregory & Linda McGowan, 2016. "An examination of the prevalence of acute pain for hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5-6), pages 583-598, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:5-6:p:624-634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.