Factors associated with clinician intention to address diverse aspects of pain in seriously ill outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common, often undertreated problem among patients with palliative needs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinician factors associated with intention to address diverse aspects of pain. DESIGN: Clinicians reviewed a clinical vignette describing a frail elderly patient with advanced hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer, depression, and pain not on analgesic therapy. Clinicians were surveyed about their intentions for treatment. PARTICIPANTS: All 280 primary care and specialist clinicians working in 19 hospital and community-based primary care, oncology, and cardiology clinics at eight geographically dispersed sites in two large VA hospital systems. MAIN MEASURES: Endpoints were clinician intention to deliver guideline-concordant care: prescribe opioids/antidepressants, assess existential wellbeing, and offer mental health referral. Demographic and behavioral measures were evaluated in association with endpoints. KEY RESULTS: Of 208 (74%) responding practitioners, 189 were responsible for prescribing decisions. Of those, 86, 77, 75, and 69 were "very"/"somewhat likely" to prescribe opioids, antidepressants, refer to a mental health specialist, or assess existential wellbeing, respectively. Factors associated with greater intent to prescribe an opioid or antidepressant included female gender, being an attending physician, being a primary care clinician, and greater confidence in pain management skills. Greater trust in the validity of pain ratings was associated with intent to prescribe an antidepressant and assess existential wellbeing. Prescribing opioids was less likely if perceived as an administrative burden. Assessing existential wellbeing was less likely if time constraints were perceived a barrier to evaluating pain. Female gender was the only factor associated with intent to refer to a mental health specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest useful targets for improving pain management include bolstering clinician confidence in pain management and their trust in pain ratings.

How reliable is pain as the fifth vital sign?

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 (chi2 = 64.04, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Though moderately accurate, the outpatient "5th vital sign" is less accurate than under ideal circumstances. Personalizing assessment is a common clinical practice but may affect the performance of research tools such as the NRS adopted for routine use.