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.
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.