The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Efficacy and Safety of Pain Management Before and After Implementation of Hospital-Wide Pain Management Standards: Is Patient Safety Compromised by Treatment Based Solely on Numerical Pain Ratings?
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Inadequate analgesia in hospitalized patients prompted the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in 2001 to introduce standards that require pain assessment and treatment. In response, many institutions implemented treatment guided by patient reports of pain intensity indexed with a numerical scale. Patient safety associated with treatment of pain guided by a numerical pain treatment algorithm (NPTA) has not been examined. We reviewed patient satisfaction with pain control and opioid-related adverse drug reactions before and after implementation of our NPTA. Patient satisfaction with pain management, measured on a 1-5 scale, significantly improved from 4.13 to 4.38 (P < 0.001) after implementation of an NPTA. The incidence of opioid over sedation adverse drug reactions per 100,000 inpatient hospital days increased from 11.0 pre-NPTA to 24.5 post-NPTA (P < 0.001). Of these patients, 94% had a documented decrease in their level of consciousness preceding the event. Although there was an improvement in patient satisfaction, we experienced a more than two-fold increase in the incidence of opioid over sedation adverse drug reactions in our hospital after the implementation of NPTA. Most adverse drug reactions were preceded by a documented decrease in the patient's level of consciousness, which emphasizes the importance of clinical assessment in managing pain. IMPLICATIONS: Although patient satisfaction with pain management has significantly improved since the adoption of pain management standards, adverse drug reactions have more than doubled. For the treatment of pain to be safe and effective, we must consider more than just a one-dimensional numerical assessment of 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
A brief history of the opioid epidemic and strategies for pain medicine
Jones, M. R., Viswanath, O., Peck, J., Kaye, A. D., Gill, J. S., & Simopoulos, T. T. (2018) · Pain and Therapy · doi:10.1007/s40122-018-0097-6 · Cited by 405
Effective Pain Management and Improvements in Patients’ Outcomes and Satisfaction
Glowacki, D. (2015) · Critical Care Nurse · doi:10.4037/ccn2015440 · Cited by 200
The Barriers to High-Quality Inpatient Pain Management: A Qualitative Study
Lin, R. J., Reid, M. C., Liu, L. L., Chused, A. E., & Evans, A. T. (2015) · American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · doi:10.1177/1049909114530491 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Vila, H., Smith, R. A., Augustyniak, M. J., Nagi, P. A., Soto, R. G., Ross, T. W., Cantor, A. B., Strickland, J. M., & Miguel, R. V.
- Venue
- Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 474-480
- ISSN
- 0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017411184
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.74
- 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: The Efficacy and Safety of Pain Management Before and After Implementation of Hospital-Wide Pain Management Standards: Is Patient Safety Compromised by Treatment Based Solely on Numerical Pain Ratings? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1213/01.ane.0000155970.45321.a8
- The paper
- Vila, H., Smith, R. A., Augustyniak, M. J., Nagi, P. A., Soto, R. G., Ross, T. W., Cantor, A. B., Strickland, J. M., & Miguel, R. V. (2005). The Efficacy and Safety of Pain Management Before and After Implementation of Hospital-Wide Pain Management Standards: Is Patient Safety Compromised by Treatment Based Solely on Numerical Pain Ratings? Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000155970.45321.a8
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.