Multidimensional Pain Assessment Tools for Ambulatory and Inpatient Nursing Practice.
Clara Scher, Emily Petti, Lauren Meador and 3 others
PMID 32448737WHAT IT FOUND
Eight multidimensional pain tools for adults with chronic pain were identified, but the review did not show that using them improves care.
Nurses can choose one that fits their setting and use it consistently.
Key findings
01Eight multidimensional pain assessment tools for adults with chronic pain were identified, and they assessed a mean of 4.75 domains.
02All eight tools included at least one item about sensory or affective pain and about pain's impact on function or sleep.
03The tools took from less than two minutes to ten minutes to administer, and evidence of validity was reported for seven of the eight tools.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review identified and described tools, but it did not test whether using them improves pain care, patient outcomes, or treatment decisions. Only eight tools remained after 26 of 34 reviewed articles were excluded, and the authors say other tools may exist. The search excluded tools over ten minutes, tools for specific body parts or diseases, and research tools such as PROMIS, so the list is not comprehensive. Quality appraisal scores ranged from 10 to 22, and only 2 of 8 articles addressed bias. The authors could not recommend a specific tool for clinicians to use, and providers need to choose a tool suited to their practice. Some tools require permission or purchase because they are copyrighted or trademarked.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not include a conflicts of interest statement. The publication types list NIH extramural research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that multidimensional pain assessment improves patient care. The review found eight tools and described their domains, timing, and validity evidence, but it did not test patient outcomes or compare the tools in practice.