Palliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.

Although dyspnea and fatigue are hallmark symptoms of heart failure (HF), the burden of pain may be underrecognized. This study assessed pain in HF and identified contributing factors. As part of a multicenter study, 96 veterans with HF (96% male, 67 ± 11 years) completed measures of symptoms, pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), functional status (Functional Morbidity Index), and psychological state (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2). Single items from the BPI interference and the quality of life-end of life measured social and spiritual well-being. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained by chart audit. Correlation and linear regression models evaluated physical, emotional, social, and spiritual factors associated with pain. Fifty-three (55.2%) HF patients reported pain, with a majority (36 [37.5%]) rating their pain as moderate to severe (pain ≥ 4/10). The presence of pain was reported more frequently than dyspnea (67 [71.3%] vs. 58 [61.7%]). Age (P = 0.02), psychological (depression: P = 0.002; anxiety: P = 0.001), social (P < 0.001), spiritual (P = 0.010), and physical (health status: P = 0.001; symptom frequency: P = 0.000; functional status: P = 0.002) well-being were correlated with pain severity. In the resulting model, 38% of the variance in pain severity was explained (P < 0.001); interference with relations (P < 0.001) and symptom number (P = 0.007) contributed to pain severity. The association of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains with pain suggests that multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address the complex nature of pain in HF.

Background: Although many health care organizations require routine pain screening (eg, "5th vital sign") with the 0 to 10 numeric rating scale (NRS), its accuracy has been questioned; here we evaluated its accuracy and potential causes for error.Methods: We randomly surveyed veterans and reviewed their charts after outpatient encounters at 2 hospitals and 6 affiliated community sites. Using correlation and receiver operating characteristic analysis, we compared the routinely measured "5th vital sign" (nurse-recorded NRS) with a research-administered NRS (research-recorded NRS) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI).Results: During 528 encounters, nurse-recorded NRS and research-recorded NRS correlated moderately (r ‫؍‬ 0.627), as did nurse-recorded NRS and BPI severity scales (r ‫؍‬ 0.613 for pain during the last 24 hours and r ‫؍‬ 0.588 for pain during the past week). Correlation with BPI interference was lower (r ‫؍‬ 0.409). However, the research-recorded NRS correlated substantially with the BPI severity during the past 24 hours (r ‫؍‬ 0.870) and BPI severity during the last week (r ‫؍‬ 0.840). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed similar results. Of the 98% of cases where a numeric score was recorded, 51% of patients reported their pain was rated qualitatively, rather than with a 0 to 10 scale, a practice associated with pain underestimation ( 2 ‫؍‬ 64.04, P < .001). Conclusion

Despite a long-standing mandate, pain-screening implementation falls short, and informal screening is common.

No abstract

Veterans with a history of SUDs, greater pain interference, more nonpain symptoms, and mental health concerns should be carefully managed to deter substance misuse for pain management.

BACKGROUNDRoutine numeric screening for pain is widely recommended, but its association with overall quality of pain care is unclear.OBJECTIVETo assess adherence to measures of pain management quality and identify associated patient and provider factors.DESIGNA cross-sectional visit-based study.PARTICIPANTSOne hundred and forty adult VA outpatient primary care clinic patients reporting a numeric rating scale (NRS) of moderate to severe pain (four or more on a zero to ten scale). Seventy-seven providers completed a baseline survey regarding general pain management attitudes and a post-visit survey regarding management of 112 participating patients.MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTSWe used chart review to determine adherence to four validated process quality indicators (QIs) including noting pain presence, pain character, and pain control, and intensifying pharmacological intervention. The average NRS was 6.7. Seventy-three percent of charts noted the presence of pain, 13.9% the character, 23.6% the degree of control, and 15.3% increased pain medication prescription. Charts were more likely to include documentation of pain presence if providers agreed that “patients want me to ask about pain” and “pain can have negative consequences on patient’s functioning”. Charts were more likely to document character of pain if providers agreed that “patients are able to rate their pain”. Patients with musculoskeletal pain were less likely to have chart documentation of character of pain.CONCLUSIONSDespite routine pain screening in VA, providers seldom documented elements considered important to evaluation and treatment of pain. Improving pain care may require attention to all aspects of pain management, not just screening.

This study supports the feasibility of evaluating NICU PC services. Infants referred for PC typically have higher morbidity/mortality; therefore, higher parental stress scores may be expected. Stress levels were similar in both cohorts, thus PC did not increase stress and may decrease PC parent stress.