Patient perception of pain care in hospitals in the United States
Anita Gupta1, Sarah Daigle2, Jeffrey Mojica3, Robert W Hurley4
1Pain Management Division, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, 3Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Division of Pain Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Medical Director of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Center, Division of Pain Medicine, Deparment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Study objective: Assessment of patients’ perception of pain control in hospitals in the United States.
Background: Limited data are available regarding the quality of pain care in the hospitalized patient. This is particularly valid for data that allow for comparison of pain outcomes from one hospital to another. Such data are critical for numerous reasons, including allowing patients and policy-makers to make data-driven decisions, and to guide hospitals in their efforts to improve pain care. The Hospital Quality Alliance was recently created by federal policy makers and private organizations in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services to conduct patient surveys to evaluate their experience including pain control during their hospitalization.
Methods: In March 2008, the results of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey was released for review for health care providers and researchers. This survey includes a battery of questions for patients upon discharge from the hospital including pain-related questions and patient satisfaction that provide valuable data regarding pain care nationwide. This study will review the results from the pain questions from this available data set and evaluate the performance of these hospitals in pain care in relationship to patient satisfaction. Furthermore, this analysis will be providing valuable information on how hospital size, geographic location and practice setting may play a role in pain care in US hospitals.
Results: The data indicates that 63% of patients gave a high rating of global satisfaction for their care, and that an additional 26% of patients felt that they had a moderate level of global satisfaction with the global quality of their care. When correlated to satisfaction with pain control, the relationship with global satisfaction and “always” receiving good pain control was highly correlated (r > 0.84). In respect to the other HCAHPS components, we found that the patient and health care staff relationship with the patient is also highly correlated with pain relief (r > 0.85). The patients’ reported level of pain relief was significantly different based upon hospital ownership, with government owned hospitals receiving the highest pain relief, followed by nonprofit hospitals, and lastly proprietary hospitals. Hospital care acuity also had an impact on the patient’s perception of their pain care; patients cared for in acute care hospitals had lower levels of satisfaction than critical access hospitals.
Conclusions: The results of this study are a representation of the experiences of patients in US hospitals with regard to pain care specifically and the need for improved methods of treating and evaluating pain care. This study provides the evidence needed for hospitals to make pain care a priority in to achieve patient satisfaction throughout the duration of their hospitalization. Furthermore, future research should be developed to make strategies for institutions and policy-makers to improve and optimize patient satisfaction with pain care.
Keywords: pain care, HCAHPS, hospitals
This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php
Readers of this article also read:
Lee JY, Kho S, Yoo HB, Park S, Choi JS, Kwon JS, Cha KR, Jung HY
Published Date: 17 April 2014
Phillips S, Gift M, Gelot S, Duong M, Tapp H
Published Date: 9 September 2013
Almer G, Saba-Lepek M, Haj-Yahya S, Rohde E, Strunk D, Fröhlich E, Prassl R, Mangge H
Published Date: 7 September 2011
Chemical nature and structure of organic coating of quantum dots is crucial for their application in imaging diagnostics
Bakalova R, Zhelev Z, Kokuryo D, Spasov L, Aoki I, Saga T
Published Date: 18 August 2011
Awadein A, Fakhry MA
Published Date: 15 August 2011
Utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes in the United States
Varun Vaidya, Gautam Partha, Jennifer Howe
Published Date: 19 January 2011
Corrigendum: Efficacy and safety of travoprost alone or in combination with other agents for glaucoma and ocular hypertension: patient considerations
Suzuki Er, Suzuki CLB
Published Date: 22 December 2010
Complex comprised of dextran magnetite and conjugated cisplatin exhibiting selective hyperthermic and controlled-release potential
Akinaga Sonoda, Norihisa Nitta, Ayumi Nitta-Seko, et al
Published Date: 14 July 2010
Eric Bateman, Dave Singh, David Smith, et al
Published Date: 9 June 2010
A review and empirical study of the composite scales of the Das–Naglieri cognitive assessment system
Simon M McCrea
Published Date: 18 March 2009