Status quo of pain‐related patient‐reported outcomes and perioperative pain management in 10,415 patients from 10 countries: Analysis of registry data

AbstractBackgroundPostoperative pain is common at the global level, despite considerable attempts for improvement, reflecting the complexity of offering effective pain relief. In this study, clinicians from Mexico, China, and eight European countries evaluated perioperative pain practices and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in their hospitals as a basis for carrying out quality improvement (QI) projects in each country.MethodsPAIN OUT, an international perioperative pain registry, provided standardized methodology for assessing management and multi‐dimensional PROs on the first postoperative day, in patients undergoing orthopaedic, general surgery, obstetric & gynaecology or urological procedures.ResultsBetween 2017 and 2019, data obtained from 10,415 adult patients in 105 wards, qualified for analysis. At the ward level: 50% (median) of patients reported worst pain intensities ≥7/10 NRS, 25% spent ≥50% of the time in severe pain and 20–34% reported severe ratings for pain‐related functional and emotional interference. Demographic variables, country and surgical discipline explained a small proportion of the variation in the PROs, leaving about 88% unexplained. Most treatment processes varied considerably between wards. Ward effects accounted for about 7% and 32% of variation in PROs and treatment processes, respectively.ConclusionsThis comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that many patients in this international cohort reported poor pain‐related PROs on the first postoperative day. PROs and treatments varied greatly. Most of the variance of the PROs could not be explained. The findings served as a basis for devising and implementing QI programmes in participating hospitals.SignificanceIn preparation for quality improvement projects, we comprehensively evaluated pain‐related patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and treatment practices of 10,415 adult patients spanning 10 countries. PROs were generally poor. Demographics, country and surgical discipline explained a small proportion of variation for the PROs, about 88% remained unexplained. Treatment practices varied considerably between wards. Ward effects accounted for about 7% and 32% of variation in PROs and treatment processes, respectively. Future studies will aim to identify treatments which are associated with improved outcomes.