Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 795

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain

Max, Mitchell B.·1995·JAMA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop quality improvement (QI) guidelines and programs to improve treatment outcomes for patients with acute pain and cancer pain. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four members of the American Pain Society (APS) participated in preparing the statement, including 15 nurses (oncology, general medical-surgical nursing, pediatrics, and QI research), seven physicians (clinical pharmacology, neurology, anesthesiology, radiation oncology, and physiatry), one psychologist, and one statistician. Participants were self-selected from the 3000 members of the APS, which supported the process and held annual open committee meetings and scientific symposia beginning in 1988. EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched (1980 to 1995) to identify all articles on pain assessment, treatment of acute pain or cancer pain, and QI or education related to pain. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Following panel discussions, one member (M.B.M.) prepared successive drafts and circulated them to the panel and APS membership for comments. After publication of a prototype version in 1991, 14 panelists carried out formal studies of implementation of the guidelines at three medical centers. This article was prepared based on this research, a new literature review, and suggestions from 50 pain clinicians and researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement programs to improve treatment of acute pain and cancer pain should include five key elements: (1) Assuring that a report of unrelieved pain raises a "red flag" that attracts clinicians' attention; (2) making information about analgesics convenient where orders are written; (3) promising patients responsive analgesic care and urging them to communicate pain; (4) implementing policies and safeguards for the use of modern analgesic technologies; and (5) coordinating and assessing implementation of these measures. Several short-term studies suggest that this QI approach may improve patient satisfaction and facilitate recognition of institutional obstacles to optimal pain treatment, but it is not a panacea for undertreated pain. By making the magnitude of the problem apparent and committing the institution to change, pain treatment QI programs can provide a foundation for a multifaceted approach that includes education of clinicians and patients, design of informational tools to minimize errors in prescribing, and improved coordination of the process of assessing and treating pain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1995.03530230060032

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 795

Metadata

Authors
Max, M. B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1995-12-20
Volume
274
Issue
23
Pages
1874
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2157626899
Cited by
795
References
0
FWCI
23.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1995.03530230060032
The paper
Max, M. B. (1995). Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530230060032

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.