Much attention has been focused on pain as the fifthvital sign. This routinely collected numeric rating scale is well validated in research settings as a tool for assessing
pain both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The usefulness of screening for pain as a quality measure has become an area of considerable interest because of increasing evidence that this 0 to 10 scale, as implemented in American hospitals, has major limitations both as a
screening and follow-up tool. These limitations include deficiencies in documentation and adherence to guidelines, as well as wide interobserver variability in pain ratings. The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology evaluated
answers in 15 practices to questions derived from previous surveys such as whether pain was assessed in either of the last two visits (95% confidence interval [CI], 81%–88%) prior to death, and whether pain was rated numerically(95% CI, 37%–46%). Variation was found in these parameters suggesting room for improvement. Further studies are needed to evaluate the usefulness of the fifth vital sign approach as a component of quality pain
assessment and management and to show how routine pain screening can better influence clinical care.
- ‵★Lv 610 years agoBest Answer
答案在15個實踐的問題來自前調查，如疼痛評估是否在任的最後兩次訪問（95％信心區間 [CI]為 81％〜88％）死亡前，是否疼痛被評為數值（95 ％CI為 37％-46％）。變異被發現在這些參數的建議改善的餘地。需要進一步研究，以評估是否有用的第五生命體徵方法作為一個組件的質量疼痛