MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation of the pain and symptom assessment record (PSAR)

2002· article· en· W2032725696 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maryse Bouvette, Frances Fothergill‐Bourbonnais, Annie Perreault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of OttawaThe Sisters of Charity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuditHealth careNursingFocus groupPalliative carePain assessmentMandateMEDLINEVariety (cybernetics)Exploratory researchFamily medicinePain managementPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Symptom control is a major component of care for the terminally ill patients. Although uncontrolled pain is distressing for patients and families, there are other symptoms that can be distressing such as dyspnea and fatigue. Determining methods to consistently assess and manage pain and other symptoms is a challenge for nurses, physicians and other health care professionals. In the Ottawa Region of Canada, health care providers raised concerns related to inconsistencies in pain assessment due to a variety of formats used, as the patient moved through the health care system. Recognizing the need for a common assessment tool, a working group was formed composed of 14 nurses associated with institutions and agencies delivering palliative care services in the Ottawa region, as well as a faculty member of the School of Nursing of the University of Ottawa. The mandate of the working group was to develop a consistent method to assess patients' pain and symptoms in order to facilitate communication among health care professionals within various health care settings. The Pain and Symptom Assessment Record (PSAR) was developed over 24 months. AIM: To determine the feasibility of implementing the PSAR in a variety of settings. METHODS: This exploratory study used focus groups and chart audits to gather data related to the utility of the PSAR. Education sessions were used to introduce the tool to nurses in the various settings. RESULTS: The tool was implemented in 12 settings. Thirty-seven education sessions were given to nurses prior to use of the tool and the feedback revealed that this is an important process in tool introduction. The results of the chart audits indicated that pain was assessed 93% of the time. Symptoms were less documented but fatigue was most prominent. Overall, patients were satisfied with their pain and symptom control. Data from the focus groups were analysed using content analysis and the two themes that emerged related to the tool were 'structure' and 'process'. CONCLUSION: There were many challenges in this project and lessons learned will be discussed. Based on the results, the tool has been modified and is currently utilized in diverse settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207