IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i19-20p2995-3006.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pain assessment and management in paediatric oncology: a cross‐sectional audit

Author

Listed:
  • Karin Plummer
  • Maria McCarthy
  • Ian McKenzie
  • Fiona Newall
  • Elizabeth Manias

Abstract

Aims and objectives To describe the pain assessment and management practices documented by health professionals within a tertiary‐level Children's Cancer Centre and to evaluate how these practices were compared with international recommendations. Background Children with cancer are vulnerable to pain due to the intensity of antineoplastic therapy. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure that current pain management practices provided to paediatric oncology inpatients are of a high quality. Design A single‐site cross‐sectional audit. Methods A 24‐hour period of documented pain‐related care in randomly selected inpatients of an Australian tertiary‐level Children's Cancer Centre was examined. The current pain management practices were audited over a two‐month period resulting in 258 episodes of pain‐related care being reviewed. Results Pain related to medical treatment for cancer was common (n = 146/258, 57%) and persistent. The presence of pain was not consistently recorded by health professionals (n = 75/146, 51%). Pain was mild (n = 26/75, 35%) and opioids were the mainstay of pain management interventions (n = 63/112, 56%). Adjuvants were an important component of pain management (n = 47/112, 42%), and nonpharmacological methods of managing pain were under‐represented in this audit (n = 38/146, 26%). According to the Pain Management Index, pain was appropriately managed for the majority of children (n = 65/76, 87%). Conclusions Pain management practices did not fully reflect the recommendations of contemporary paediatric pain management. Due to limitations in the documentation of children's pain, it was difficult to determine the effectiveness of pain management interventions. Relevance to clinical practice This study highlights the ongoing problem of pain for children receiving antineoplastic therapy. It is recommended that health professionals routinely screen for the presence of pain during hospitalisation and assess the efficacy of pain‐related care.

Suggested Citation

  • Karin Plummer & Maria McCarthy & Ian McKenzie & Fiona Newall & Elizabeth Manias, 2017. "Pain assessment and management in paediatric oncology: a cross‐sectional audit," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(19-20), pages 2995-3006, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:19-20:p:2995-3006
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13643
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13643?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jaga Maya Shrestha‐Ranjit & Elizabeth Manias, 2010. "Pain assessment and management practices in children following surgery of the lower limb," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1‐2), pages 118-128, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jackie Vasey & Joanna Smith & Marilynne N. Kirshbaum & Kathleen Chirema, 2019. "Tokenism or true partnership: Parental involvement in a child’s acute pain care," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1491-1505, May.
    2. Lucyna Tomaszek & Grażyna Dębska, 2018. "Knowledge, compliance with good clinical practices and barriers to effective control of postoperative pain among nurses from hospitals with and without a “Hospital without Pain” certificate," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1641-1652, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:19-20:p:2995-3006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.