Pain and Dyspnea During Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Documentation Audit 2019-2020.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Stephanie Y Clarke, Marie T Williams, Kylie N Johnston, Annemarie L Lee
{"title":"Pain and Dyspnea During Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Documentation Audit 2019-2020.","authors":"Stephanie Y Clarke, Marie T Williams, Kylie N Johnston, Annemarie L Lee","doi":"10.3390/jcm14010252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess the severity and impact of both pain and dyspnea in those with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but their frequency of use in clinical practice is unknown. This study aimed to determine the point prevalence of pain and dyspnea assessment in patients hospitalized with an acute exacerbation of COPD and the measurement tools applied for this purpose in clinical practice. <b>Methods:</b> Clinical notes and observation charts of patients admitted with acute exacerbations of COPD to a metropolitan hospital in 2019 and 2020 were retrospectively audited to identify the point prevalence of pain and dyspnea assessment, the PROMs applied, and their associated focal periods. <b>Results:</b> Pain and dyspnea were assessed using a PROM in 99% and 8% of cases of acute exacerbation of COPD, respectively. All PROMs used measured symptom intensity. Focal periods were rarely reported in the assessment of pain; in the dyspnea assessment, timeframes predominantly reflected the impact of exertion. <b>Conclusions:</b> At this single health service site, in people hospitalized with an acute exacerbation of COPD, pain was more frequently assessed using a PROM than dyspnea. Understanding factors influencing clinicians' choice of assessment tools may inform future recommendations for the assessment of these symptoms in people hospitalized with exacerbations of COPD.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11720982/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010252","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess the severity and impact of both pain and dyspnea in those with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but their frequency of use in clinical practice is unknown. This study aimed to determine the point prevalence of pain and dyspnea assessment in patients hospitalized with an acute exacerbation of COPD and the measurement tools applied for this purpose in clinical practice. Methods: Clinical notes and observation charts of patients admitted with acute exacerbations of COPD to a metropolitan hospital in 2019 and 2020 were retrospectively audited to identify the point prevalence of pain and dyspnea assessment, the PROMs applied, and their associated focal periods. Results: Pain and dyspnea were assessed using a PROM in 99% and 8% of cases of acute exacerbation of COPD, respectively. All PROMs used measured symptom intensity. Focal periods were rarely reported in the assessment of pain; in the dyspnea assessment, timeframes predominantly reflected the impact of exertion. Conclusions: At this single health service site, in people hospitalized with an acute exacerbation of COPD, pain was more frequently assessed using a PROM than dyspnea. Understanding factors influencing clinicians' choice of assessment tools may inform future recommendations for the assessment of these symptoms in people hospitalized with exacerbations of COPD.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
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