Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany
  • 2 Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Research Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
  • 3 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Prizen Regional Hospital, Prizen, Kosovo
  • 4 Department of Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  • 5 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital, Bedfordview, South Africa
  • 6 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Charite, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany
  • 7 Department of Nursing, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
  • 8 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 9 Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
  • 10 Department of Hospice and Palliative Care, Centre for Palliative Care, Ibadan, Nigeria
  • 11 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Military Hospital, Belgrade, Serbia
Pain Rep, 2019 01 25;4(1):e705.
PMID: 30801045 DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000705

Abstract

Introduction: The burden of untreated postoperative pain is high.

Objective: This study assessed feasibility of using quality improvement (QI) tools to improve management of perioperative pain in hospitals in multiple developing countries.

Methods: The International Pain Registry and Developing Countries working groups, from the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), sponsored the project and PAIN OUT, a QI and research network, coordinated it, and provided the research tools. The IASP published a call about the project on its website. Principal investigators (PIs) were responsible for implementing a preintervention and postintervention study in 1 to 2 surgical wards in their hospitals, and they were free to choose the QI intervention. Trained surveyors used standardized and validated web-based tools for collecting findings about perioperative pain management and patient reported outcomes (PROs). Four processes and PROs, independent of surgery type, assessed effectiveness of the interventions.

Results: Forty-three providers responded to the call; 13 applications were selected; and PIs from 8 hospitals, in 14 wards, in 7 countries, completed the study. Interventions focused on teaching providers about pain management. Processes improved in 35% and PROs in 37.5% of wards.

Conclusions: The project proved useful on multiple levels. It offered PIs a framework and tools to perform QI work and findings to present to colleagues and administration. Management practices and PROs improved on some wards. Interpretation of change proved complex, site-dependent, and related to multiple factors. PAIN OUT gained experience coordinating a multicentre, international QI project. The IASP promoted research, education, and QI work.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.