Pressure Ulcer Pain: Assessment and Quantification

Dallam, Linda; Smyth, Carole; Jackson, Bettie S.; Krinsky, Ruth W.; O’Dell, Christine; Rooney, J; Badillo, C; Amella, Elaine; Ferrara, Lucille R.; Freeman, Katherine

doi:10.1097/00152192-199509000-00007

Cited by 64 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, evidence suggests that the pain management for this group is not comparable to other painful conditions such as musculoskeletal pain. For example, in a study of people with PUs, 59% of the sample reported PU pain but only 2% received analgesia within 4 hours of the interview [17]. Quirino and colleagues in a small study of 20 patients noted that pain compromised movement and that 80% of patients had pain for more than 1 hour a day [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatients with pressure ulcers (PUs) report that pain is their most distressing symptom, but there are few PU pain prevalence studies. We sought to estimate the prevalence of unattributed pressure area related pain (UPAR pain) which was defined as pain, soreness or discomfort reported by patients, on an “at risk” or PU skin site, reported at a patient level.MethodsWe undertook pain prevalence surveys in 2 large UK teaching hospital NHS Trusts (6 hospitals) and a district general hospital NHS Trust (3 hospitals) during their routine annual PU prevalence audits. The hospitals provide secondary and tertiary care beds in acute and elective surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, burns, medicine, elderly medicine, oncology and rehabilitation. Anonymised individual patient data were recorded by the ward nurse and PU prevalence team. The analysis of this prevalence survey included data summaries; no inferential statistical testing was planned or undertaken. Percentages were calculated using the total number of patients from the relevant population as the denominator (i.e. including all patients with missing data for that variable).ResultsA total of 3,397 patients in 9 acute hospitals were included in routine PU prevalence audits and, of these, 2010 (59.2%) patients participated in the pain prevalence study. UPAR pain prevalence was 16.3% (327/2010). 1769 patients had no PUs and of these 223 patients reported UPAR pain, a prevalence of 12.6%. Of the 241 people with pressure ulcers, 104 patients reported pain, a UPAR pain prevalence of 43.2% (104/241).ConclusionOne in six people in acute hospitals experience UPAR pain on ‘at risk’ or PU skin sites; one in every 8 people without PUs and, more than 2 out of every five people with PUs. The results provide a clear indication that all patients should be asked if they have pain at pressure areas even when they do not have a PU.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of pain at pressure areas and pressure ulcers in hospitalised patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Other studies reveal that subjects with venous leg ulcers give vivid descriptions of their pain experiences, which often continues even after the leg ulcers were healed. 4,5 Dallam and colleagues 6 report that 59% of subjects who developed pressure ulcers in a hospital setting experienced pain, and a substantial number perceived its intensity as severe. Spilsbury and coworkers 7 reported that as many as 91% of their subjects experienced pressure ulcer-associated pain.…”

Section: ■ Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Improvement of Wound-Associated Pain and Healing Trajectory With a Comprehensive Foot and Leg Ulcer Care Model

Woo

Sibbald

2009

Journal of Wound, Ostomy &Amp; Continence Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tools that have been demonstrated to be valid and reliable for pain assessment include the Faces Rating Scale, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the visual analog scale. 10,14,25,27,[30][31][32][33] The Faces Pain Scale and the Present Pain Intensity subscale of the MPQ have been shown to be useful in cognitively impaired individuals, 34,35 whereas the Behavioral Pain Scale has been used for critically ill individuals. 36 Pain in children can be assessed using the Faces 37 or FLACC (face, legs, activity, cry, consolability) scale, 38 and the CRIES Pain Scale has been found to be a reliable tool for neonates.…”

Section: Treatment For Wound Painmentioning

confidence: 99%