A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Improving the quality of cancer pain management in palliative care unit: Targeted clinical audit]. | LitMetric

[Improving the quality of cancer pain management in palliative care unit: Targeted clinical audit].

Bull Cancer

Hospices civils de Lyon, centre hospitalier de Lyon-Sud, Department of Palliative Care, 165, chemin du Grand-Revoyet, 69310 Pierre-Bénite, France. Electronic address:

Published: August 2017

AI Article Synopsis

  • This study evaluates cancer pain management quality in a Palliative care unit through a clinical audit method, involving a review of patient care standards over two time periods.
  • It found significant improvements in documentation and assessment for various pain types after implementing corrective measures, such as neuropathic pain and breakthrough pain evaluation.
  • While overall quality improved, the study indicates that more attention is needed for aspects like patient education and accurate medical record documentation.

Article Abstract

Unlabelled: Goal This study aims to assess the quality of the cancer pain management in Palliative care unit.

Method: The method used was the targeted clinical audit. The audit grid was built according to the recommendations of the pilot Committee, and tested until the final version with 19 items was obtained. In this retrospective study, 60 consecutive patients were studied on 2 periods of time. The first one (T1) shows the gap between the patient's chart and the expected standard, and proposes corrective measures. The second one (T2) re-assesses, using the same items list, the efficacy of these measures.

Results: After the corrective measures, the patients' medical record documentation was significantly improved at T2 for: neuropathic pain assessment improved, from 3% (T1) to 67% (T2) (P<0.001), so did pain assessment during the titration, from 6.7% (T1) to 90% (T2) (P<0.001). The overdoses symptoms assessment improved from 17% at T1 to 93% at T2, (P=0.002) and breakthrough pain evaluation improved from 3% at T1 to 73% at T2, (P<0.001). The pain reassessment after the rescue doses improved from 10% at T1 to 73% at T2 (P<0.001). The other points improved but not significantly.

Conclusion: The quality of the pain cancer management was improved during the audit, but some points (patient education and in patient medical record documentation) can be improved. We need to continue to implement the improvement measures in our unit.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2017.04.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

quality cancer
8
cancer pain
8
pain management
8
management palliative
8
palliative care
8
targeted clinical
8
corrective measures
8
[improving quality
4
care unit
4
unit targeted
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!