Background: Postoperative 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.Methods: PAIN 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.Results: Between 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.Conclusions: This 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.Significance: In 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.

Women who have had a Cesarean Section (CS) frequently report severe pain and pain-related interference. One reason for insufficient pain treatment might be inconsistent implementation of evidence-based guidelines. We assessed the association between implementing three elements of care recommended by guidelines for postoperative pain management and pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women after CS. The analysis relied on an anonymized dataset of women undergoing CS, retrieved from PAIN OUT. PAIN OUT, an international perioperative pain registry, provides clinicians with treatment assessment methodology and tools for patients to assess multi-dimensional pain-related PROs on the first postoperative day. We examined whether the care included [i] regional anesthesia with a neuraxial opioid OR general anesthesia with wound infiltration or a Transvesus Abdominis Plane block; [ii] at least one non-opioid analgesic at the full daily dose; and [iii] pain assessment and recording. Credit for care was given only if all three elements were administered (= “full”); otherwise, it was “incomplete”. A “Pain Composite Score-total” (PCS_total), evaluating outcomes of pain intensity, pain-related interference with function, and side-effects, was the primary endpoint in the total cohort (women receiving GA and/or RA) or a sub-group of women with RA only. Data from 5182 women was analyzed. “Full” care was administered to 20% of women in the total cohort and to 21% in the RA sub-group. In both groups, the PCS_total was significantly lower compared to “incomplete” care (p < 0.001); this was a small-to-moderate effect size. Administering all three elements of care was associated with better pain-related outcomes after CS. These should be straightforward and inexpensive for integration into routine care after CS. However, even in this group, a high proportion of women reported poor outcomes, indicating that additional work needs to be carried out to close the evidence-practice gap so that women who have undergone CS can be comfortable when caring for themselves and their newborn.