thics: Ethics and Pain Management in Hospitalized Patients

^md

Esther Bernhofer, BSN, RN-BC

Citation: Bernhofer, E., (October 25, 2011) "Ethics and Pain Management in Hospitalized
Patients" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 17 No. 1.

DOI: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol17No01EthCol01

Optimal pain care for hospitalized patients continues to remain elusive. Results of the Hospital Consumer
Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (HCAHPS) show that only 63-74% of
hospitalized patients nationwide reported that their pain was well controlled (Summary of HCAHPS
Survey Results, 2011). Although pain research has resulted in a better understanding of pain modalities
and the development of new treatments, patients report little increase in satisfaction with the
management of their pain while hospitalized (Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). This
column will examine how the deliberate use of ethical principles, when making pain management
decisions for hospitalized patients, may provide more optimal outcomes.

Assessment and treatment of pain is often complex. The standard definition of pain is whatever the
experiencing person says it is, existing whenever the experiencing person says it does (McCaffery,
1968, p.95). In practice, however, practitioners personal biases about the patients pain may interfere
with the realization of this definition when doing a pain assessment. Regrettably, the intrinsic
subjectivity of pain is often disregarded. Practitioners who would likely not judge the character of a
patient who needs increased amounts of medication to treat hypertension; yet they may believe that a
patient whose persistent pain does not respond to standard medications is drug-seeking, a narcotic
abuser, or has a current need to escape reality. The unemotional, transparent principles of ethics may
be useful in such cases to provide guidelines for better, more effective pain treatment. The ethical
principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice should guide all health professionals
when they make assessment and treatment decisions.

Autonomy

Autonomy is the right of individuals to make decisions regarding their own healthcare regardless of what
others think of these decisions (Evans, 2000). It is the right of self-determination (American Nurses
Association, 2001). The Belmont Report clearly confers this right on all human beings as a respect for
persons regardless of age, capacity, or even imprisonment (National Institutes of Health, 1979).
Individuals must be treated with respect for their personal healthcare decisions regardless of whether
the healthcare provider agrees with these decisions. The principle of autonomy is violated when a
practitioner dishonors patients rights to choose how they want their pain to be treated.

Infringement on the right to autonomy or self-determination may also be seen in the withholding of
information from patients about how much and how often they can receive pain medication while in the
hospital. Patients have the right to know, consider, request, and refuse any treatments that they believe
will help manage their pain. They also have the right to have all medications, side effects, and other
treatments clearly explained to them in order to make the right decisions.

Interestingly, when patients are fully extended their right to autonomy, their pain is often better
managed, and they report better satisfaction with their care. When patients perceive that they are
understood, and can make their own decisions regarding pain control, they often do better. One
example of this is the growing use of Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) for the treatment of acute pain
in the hospital setting. When analgesics are adequately ordered and the pump is properly programmed
for the individual, patients experience personal control over their pain and receive effective analgesia
(Hudcova, McNicol, Quah, Lau, & Carr, 2005).
Beneficence

Beneficence is defined as doing good for an individual (National Institutes of Health, 1979). Most nurses
and other clinicians easily ascribe to this tenet because they entered the healthcare profession,
ostensibly, to do good for others and provide comfort and pain relief. In the modern hospital setting, it is
very rare that pain must be allowed for diagnostic reasons; and it is even rarer that severe pain cannot
be controlled in some fashion. Undertreated pain can lead to respiratory, cardiac, and endocrine
complications as well as delay healing and potentiate the onset of chronic pain issues for an individual
(Brennan, Carr, & Cousins, 2007). Although complete relief may not always be possible, the means for
bringing pain under control quickly is usually available and must be done to be considered good patient
care.

Making decisions regarding pain treatment and doing good, however, can take on a distinct complexity.
Many reasons are often given for not providing pain relief expeditiously. Excuses range from nurses
being too busy, to difficulties in getting medication orders from physicians and pharmacy departments.
Patients sometime wait hours for pain relief. If nurses do not make the management of pain a priority
for their patients, and do not do all they can to advocate to the physician for a patients need for
increased dosages in medication so as to properly combat pain, they are guilty of neglecting the
principle of beneficence. Likewise, when adequate pain relief is withheld because the patient has a
history of substance abuse, the nurse has not given good care to the patient. The principle of
beneficence is upheld when the appropriate amount of medication or other treatment is administered to
the patient in a timely fashion resulting in the best pain control with acceptable side effects.

Nonmaleficence

The principle of nonmaleficence is defined as refraining from doing harm (National Institutes of Health,
1979). Herein may lie the greatest obstacle to ethical adherence in deciding the appropriate treatment
for pain in the acute care setting.

Nonmaleficence is often the principle of ethics invoked by nurses and practitioners when having difficulty
deciding on pain treatments: they withhold medication citing safety. There certainly can be a
reasonable fear on the part of the practitioner of causing harm while treating pain since so many
treatments for pain have potentially dangerous side effects. It is imperative to understand, however,
that pain itself may be more harmful to the patient than the side effects of the drugs used to control it.
As stated previously, untreated pain can have detrimental physical and emotional effects on a patient.
For example, an opioid may be the only effective treatment for an acute pain situation in a hospitalized
person, yet a nurse or physicians general fear of opioids (usually a fear of respiratory depression) can
result in inadequate pain treatment. This fear is often unsubstantiated in the hospital setting since the
administration of opioids and their effects are carefully monitored. Nurses must remember that
expecting a patient to remain in unacceptable pain can cause harm in many ways ranging from mild
(anxiety) to severe (suicide).

Justice

The principal of justice states that all persons should be treated fairly according to their situation
(National Institutes of Health, 1979; Velasquez, Andre, Shanks, & Meyer, 1990). This principle is
violated when treatments are withheld or are not administered solely based on a persons sex, age,
race, or religion, unless those factors have a distinct bearing on treatment. For example, when choosing
a pain medication for a person who is 80 years old, age must be considered since certain medications
have been shown to be more harmful in older people. However, all safe pain treatments should be
considered for a patient who is 80, just as they would be for a patient who is 40. When a demanding and
wealthy socialite receives more consideration in the management of her pain than the quiet,
unassuming, poor, single mother, the principle of justice is violated.

Disparities in treating pain continue. Persons in minority groups have been shown to receive less pain
medication than their white counterparts in emergency rooms, post-operatively, and in labor (Ezenwa,
Ameringer, Ward, & Serlin, 2006). It is important for nurses to be aware that these discrepancies still
exist in modern hospitals and to examine their own biases when treatment decisions are made.

Ethical Pain Management

Due to the inherent subjectivity of pain, assessment and treatment decisions can easily be influenced by
bias and emotion. Evans (2000) makes the case that adhering to the principles of ethics (principlism)
provides a very practical, unemotional way of making right decisions. Decisions, such as those involving
pain management, can be made with thought, regard, and transparency for all involved (Evans, 2000).
In making decisions about pain management, it may be helpful for nurses to ask themselves questions
similar to the following:

Are the patients preferences in pain treatment (autonomy) given the highest priority?
Does the patient benefit (experience good) from my pain treatment decisions?
What can I do to decrease harm (nonmaleficence) when deciding on a pain treatment regimen?
Did I do my best to protect the most vulnerable patient, treating his/her pain in the best
possible way with respect and without discrimination (justice)?
Conclusion

In order for ethical principlism to become a practical and integral way of making pain management
decisions, the nursing culture must embrace it as a matter of course. The conscious use of basic ethical
principles can help nurses to see their own biases clearly and make evidence-based decisions that
provide optimal pain treatment for every patient. Referring to ethical principles may also help the
nurse advocate for the patients pain relief needs when talking to physicians who may also have their
own biases in pain treatment.

At first it seems difficult to understand why hospitalized patients pain is not well controlled. After all,
nurses want to relieve suffering to do good without causing harm and to treat each individual justly
without moral judgment, respecting each patients autonomy and ability to make his/her own decisions.
But management of pain is complex and influenced by the personal values and biases of practitioners.
Although consciously following the principles of ethics when deciding on pain treatment can be time
consuming, applying the four basic principles to pain care in every situation is imperative if pain is to be
managed at optimal levels. Making unbiased, ethical decisions in the treatment of pain for hospitalized
patients instills confidence and trust in patients and may ultimately lead to greater patient satisfaction
with pain management.

Letter to the Editor by Tanya Ushakof

with Reply by Author

Author

Esther Bernhofer, BSN, RN-BC

E-mail: bernhoe@ccf.org

Ms. Bernhofer is the Pain Management/Education Coordinator for the inpatient Medicine and Digestive
Disease Institutes at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. She is board certified (American Nurses
Credentialing Center) in Pain Management Nursing and has a strong desire to see to the optimization of
pain care for all hospitalized patients. She believes that one of the primary reasons for the ineffectual
treatment of pain may be difficulty in applying ethical principles when making decisions for pain
treatment. She advocates that adhering to an ethical framework for the treatment of patients with acute
pain in the hospital may be the answer to better pain care satisfaction for patients. Ms. Bernhofer
received her BSN from the University of Akron (OH) and is currently completing the BSN to PhD program
at the Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland). She is
currently a doctoral candidate in nursing with a program of research in pain management.

References
American Nurses Association, (2001). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. Retrieved
July 22, 2011
fromwww.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/CodeofEthicsforNurses.aspx

Brennan, F., Carr, D. B., & Cousins, M. (2007). Pain management: A fundamental human right. Pain
Medicine, 105(1), 205-221. doi: 10.1213/01. ane.0000268145.52345.55

Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Hospital compare. Retrieved August 10, 2011
from www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/

DuPree, E., Martin, L., Anderson, R., Kathuria, N., Reich, D., Porter, C., & Chassin, M. (2009). Improving
patient satisfaction with pain management using six sigma tools. Joint Commission Journal on Quality
and Patient Safety, 35(7), 343-350.

Evans, J. (2000). A sociological account of the growth of principlism. The Hastings Center Report, 30(5),
31-38.

Ezenwa, M. O., Ameringer, S., Ward, S. E., & Serlin, R. C. (2006). Racial and ethnic disparities in pain
management in the United States. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,38(3), 225-233.

Hudcova, J., McNicol, E. D., Quah, C. S., Lau, J., & Carr, D. B. (2005). Patient controlled opioid
analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia of postoperative pain: A quantitative systematic
review. Acute Pain, 7(3), 115-132.doi:10.1016/j.acpain.2005.09.002

McCaffery, M. (1968). Nursing practice theories related to cognition, bodily pain, and man- environment
interactions. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles Students Store.

National Institutes of Health. (1979). The Belmont Report ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved
fromhttp://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html#gob

Samuels, J. (2010). The application of high-reliability theory to promote pain management Journal of
Nursing Administration, 40(11), 471-476.

Spross, J. (2001). Harnessing power and passion: Lessons from pain management leaders and
literature. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 4(4), 557-566.

Summary of HCAHPS survey results. cahpsonline.org/HCAHPS_Executive_Insight. July 2009-June 2010.

(2011). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved July 22, 2011
fromwww.hcahpsonline.org/files/Summary%20of%20HCAHPS%20Survey%20Results%20Table%20Rep
ort_HEI_April_2011.pdf

Van Niekerk, L., & Martin, F. (2003). The impact of the nurse-physician relationship on barriers
encountered by nurses during pain management. Pain Management Nursing, 4(1), 3-
10. doi:10.1053/jpmn.2003.4

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T. S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (1990). Justice and fairness. Markkula Center
for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University. Retrieved July 22, 2011
fromwww.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/justice.html