Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Knowledge translation and process improvement interventions increased pain assessment documentation in a large quaternary paediatric post-anaesthesia care unit
  1. Daniel Stocki1,2,
  2. Conor McDonnell3,4,
  3. Gail Wong3,
  4. Gloria Kotzer5,
  5. Kelly Shackell5,
  6. Fiona Campbell3,4
  1. 1 Division of Anesthesia, Pain and Intensive Care, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
  2. 2 Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
  3. 3 Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4 University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5 Post Anesthetic Care Unit, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daniel Stocki; danielstocki{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Due to inadequate pain assessment documentation in our paediatric post-anaesthetic care unit (PACU), we were unable to monitor pain intensity, and target factors contributing to moderate and severe postoperative pain in children. The purpose of this study was to improve pain assessment documentation in PACU through a process improvement intervention and knowledge translation (KT) strategy. The study was set in a PACU within a large university affiliated paediatric hospital. Participants included PACU and Acute Pain Service nursing staff, administrative staff and anaesthesiologists.

Methods The Plan–Do–Study-Act method of quality improvement was used. Benchmark data were obtained by chart review of 99 patient medical records prior to interventions. Data included pain assessment documentation (pain intensity score, use of validated pain intensity measure) during PACU stay. Repeat chart audit took place at 4, 5 and 6 months after the intervention.

Intervention Key informant interviews were conducted to identify barriers to pain assessment documentation. A process improvement was implemented whereby the PACU flowsheets were modified to facilitate pain assessment documentation. KT strategy was implemented to increase awareness of pain assessment documentation and to provide the knowledge, skill and judgement to support this practice. The KT strategy was directed at PACU nursing staff and comprised education outreach (educational meetings for PACU nurses, discussions at daily huddles), reminders (screensavers, bedside posters, email reminders) and feedback of audit results.

Results The proportion of charts that included at least one documented pain assessment was 69%. After intervention, pain assessment documentation increased to >90% at 4 and 5 months, respectively, and to 100% after 6 months.

Conclusion After implementing process improvement and KT interventions, pain assessment documentation improved. Additional work is needed in several key areas, specifically monitoring moderate to severe pain, in order to target factors contributing to significant postoperative pain in children.

  • pain
  • paediatrics
  • audit and feedback
  • pdsa
  • quality improvement

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors DS, CMcD, GW and FC: Contributed to idea. DS, GK and KS: Data collection. DS, CMcD, GW, GK, KS and FC: Active role in developing and implementing interventions. DS: Manuscript preparation and submission. CM and GW: Manuscript preparation.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.