Understanding venous leg ulcer pain: results of a longitudinal study.

Venous leg ulcer pain experienced during compression bandaging is poorly understood. A prospective, pilot cohort study was initiated to determine the feasibility of conducting a large-scale, repeated measures cohort study of venous leg ulcer pain and to document and describe the venous leg ulcer pain experience during the first 5 weeks of treatment with compression bandages. Eligible individuals admitted to a nurse-led community leg ulcer service in one Canadian community were recruited for the 5-week study. Pain assessment tools (ie, numerical rating scale and short form McGill Pain Questionnaire) were evaluated by 20 venous ulcer patients (mean age = 73.7 years) and their nurses for ease of use during one baseline and five weekly follow-up visits. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) information was obtained. Nurses reported on ease of integrating pain data collection into regular clinical care. Each pain assessment tool was audited for completion. Most participants found the pain assessment tools easy to use, but nurses reported lengthened visit times with some participants as a result of tool administration difficulties, particularly the visual analogue scale (VAS). Overall completeness of pain assessment tools ranged from 85.0% (visual analogue scale) to 96.3% (present pain intensity and word descriptor list). The vast majority of patients (18) reported ulcer pain at baseline. Total mean scores for all pain assessment tools used decreased over time, but most patients reported pain throughout the study. The most common pain descriptors used were "aching," "stabbing," "sharp," "tender," and "tiring." Health-related quality of life was low and did not change during the 5-week study. The results of this study suggest that the vast majority of venous ulcer patients experience pain and that it is feasible to examine this pain in individuals receiving care in the community over time.

The measurement of leg ulcer pain: identification and appraisal of pain assessment tools.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare the psychometric, clinical sensibility, and pain-specific properties of leg ulcer pain assessment tools for use as a guide for clinicians and researchers. DESIGN: Pain assessment tools were selected for appraisal based on 4 inclusion criteria: (1) designed specifically to measure either quality and/or intensity of pain, (2) used in at least 2 different diseases and/or pain-inducing interventions in adults, (3) generic, and (4) patient self-reporting. The tools were appraised against psychometric properties, clinical sensibility attributes, and pain-specific issues. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. Then the first 2 reviewers independently assessed the selected tools using the predetermined appraisal criteria. RESULTS: Of 54 identified pain assessment tools, 5 (the pain ruler, the numerical rating scale, the visual analogue scale, the verbal descriptor scale, and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire) met the inclusion criteria. Each tool met the appraisal criteria to varying degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pain assessment tool to measure leg ulcer pain is recommended. Clinicians must decide independently which factors are most important when selecting a tool. Although a specific pain assessment approach cannot yet be recommended, a 2-step pain assessment process is most practical. To optimize pain management, further study is needed to ensure that leg ulcer pain is accurately and reliably assessed.