Consensus Guidelines for Assessment and Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation in Rural Pain Clinics

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
{"title":"Consensus Guidelines for Assessment and Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation in Rural Pain Clinics","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.pmn.2024.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Recent advancements in nurse anesthesiology<span><span><span><span> fellowship training programs have helped to establish advanced pain management services for rural communities. Consensus guidelines to direct the rural provider toward the most valid and reliable measures for pain assessment and functional outcomes evaluation are not presently available. The primary aim of this initiative was to establish consensus guidelines for a comprehensive outcome </span>evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments that can be utilized by all rural pain clinics. The American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology Nonsurgical Pain Management </span>Advisory Panel<span><span> members provided formative and expert feedback for this initiative. The Delphi model was utilized to achieve consensus through multiple rounds of surveys. Items achieving &gt;70% agree/strongly agree were kept; items with &gt;70% disagree/strongly disagree were rejected; items meeting neither advanced to the following round for evaluation until consensus was met. During round I, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Numerical Rating Scale for </span>pain severity; and (2) timing of pain severity &amp; functional pain outcomes on each </span></span>office visit and before/after each intervention. Round II, consensus was achieved for: (1) the use of Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale as a suitable instrument when literacy or communication pose a barrier but not as a primary assessment; and (2) the use of the Brief Pain Index-Short Form for functional outcome measures. During round III, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the </span></span>Oswestry Disability Index as a functional outcome measure; and (2) pain reassessment being performed within 14 days of intervention. This initiative provides rural pain clinics with a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19959,"journal":{"name":"Pain Management Nursing","volume":"25 4","pages":"Pages 338-345"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Management Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152490422400105X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent advancements in nurse anesthesiology fellowship training programs have helped to establish advanced pain management services for rural communities. Consensus guidelines to direct the rural provider toward the most valid and reliable measures for pain assessment and functional outcomes evaluation are not presently available. The primary aim of this initiative was to establish consensus guidelines for a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments that can be utilized by all rural pain clinics. The American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology Nonsurgical Pain Management Advisory Panel members provided formative and expert feedback for this initiative. The Delphi model was utilized to achieve consensus through multiple rounds of surveys. Items achieving >70% agree/strongly agree were kept; items with >70% disagree/strongly disagree were rejected; items meeting neither advanced to the following round for evaluation until consensus was met. During round I, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Numerical Rating Scale for pain severity; and (2) timing of pain severity & functional pain outcomes on each office visit and before/after each intervention. Round II, consensus was achieved for: (1) the use of Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale as a suitable instrument when literacy or communication pose a barrier but not as a primary assessment; and (2) the use of the Brief Pain Index-Short Form for functional outcome measures. During round III, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Oswestry Disability Index as a functional outcome measure; and (2) pain reassessment being performed within 14 days of intervention. This initiative provides rural pain clinics with a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments.

农村疼痛诊所评估和综合结果评价共识指南》。
麻醉学护士研究员培训计划的最新进展有助于为农村社区建立先进的疼痛管理服务。目前还没有共识指南来指导农村医疗服务提供者采用最有效、最可靠的疼痛评估和功能结果评估措施。这项倡议的主要目的是为全面的结果评估计划制定共识指南,并规定评估的具体时间间隔,供所有农村疼痛诊所使用。美国麻醉护士协会非手术疼痛管理顾问小组成员为该计划提供了形成性的专家反馈意见。通过多轮调查,利用德尔菲模型达成了共识。同意/非常同意率超过 70% 的项目予以保留;不同意/非常不同意率超过 70% 的项目予以剔除;两者均不符合的项目进入下一轮评估,直至达成共识。在第一轮中,就以下方面达成了共识(1) 疼痛严重程度数字分级量表的使用;(2) 每次就诊和每次干预前后疼痛严重程度和功能性疼痛结果的时间安排。第二轮,就以下方面达成共识(1) 当读写能力或沟通能力存在障碍时,使用 Wong-Baker FACES 疼痛评分量表作为合适的评估工具,但不作为主要评估工具;以及 (2) 使用简短疼痛指数短表进行功能性结果测量。在第三轮中,就以下方面达成了共识(1) 使用 Oswestry 残疾指数作为功能结果测量;以及 (2) 在干预后 14 天内进行疼痛再评估。这一举措为农村疼痛诊所提供了一个全面的结果评估计划,并规定了评估的具体时间间隔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Management Nursing
Pain Management Nursing 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
187
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal offers a unique focus on the realm of pain management as it applies to nursing. Original and review articles from experts in the field offer key insights in the areas of clinical practice, advocacy, education, administration, and research. Additional features include practice guidelines and pharmacology updates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信