Pain and pain management in hospitalized patients before and after an intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Studies have shown that pain is common among hospitalized patients and that there is a lack of compliance with pain management guidelines. Improving pain management does not only involve developing new drugs or technology; even more important is an effective organisation that utilises existing expertise. The aim of this study was to investigate whether pain in hospitalized patients can be reduced by implementing evidence-based pain management guidelines, providing education for staff and an organisation that includes pain responsibility nurses. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out between 2009 and 2010 at two hospitals in southwest Sweden, comprising a baseline survey followed by an intervention. The study involved 306 patients, who answered questions about pain intensity at rest and while moving, disturbed sleep due to pain and whether they had used a pain rating scale while in hospital. Medical records were scrutinised for analgesic prescriptions. An intervention then took place, involving implementation of evidence-based guidelines, staff education and the introduction of pain responsibility nurses. A follow-up survey was carried out in 2012, in which 293 patients answered the same questions and their medical records were also reviewed. The baseline results were then compared with those of the follow-up survey. RESULTS: When compared with the baseline survey, the follow-up survey revealed significant differences in the use of validated pain rating instruments as well as the prescription of more appropriate analgesics. Prescription of paracetamol increased significantly in the follow-up survey; 56% of the patients were prescribed paracetamol on a regular basis, compared with 42% at baseline. There was also a significant increase in the use of strong opioids, from 38% at baseline to 55% at follow-up. Prescriptions of weak opioids decreased from 16% at baseline to 4% at follow-up. No significant differences were observed in patient pain levels in the follow-up survey. At baseline, 29% of the patients reported moderate to severe pain at rest (NRS 4-10) and at follow-up that figure was 24% (NRS 4-10). In both surveys, 41% reported moderate to severe pain (NRS 5-10) during movement. Thirty-nine percent reported disturbed sleep at night at both baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that evidence-based guidelines made accessible to all staff as a pocket size booklet and on the intranet, in combination with staff education, pain responsibility nurses who informed other staff on their own wards, improved the prescription of analgesics in the hospitals studied. In order to achieve a noticeable effect for patients, i.e., reduced pain levels, an intervention containing more components than those employed in the present study is required. IMPLICATIONS: Nurses and physicians need greater knowledge about the importance of pain rating. A vital part of pain management at hospitals is continuous evaluation of treatment outcomes to prevent severe pain and disturbed sleep. The complexity of pain and pain management requires commitment, time and knowledge on the part of healthcare staff. Multi-professional pain teams that support ward staff in pain management are necessary in order to reduce suffering and unnecessary pain in hospitalized patients.

Nursing students' evaluation of quality indicators during learning in clinical practice.

A supportive clinical learning environment is important for nursing students' learning. In this study, a contract between a county and a university involving a preceptor model of clinical education for nursing students is described. The aim of this study was to describe nursing students' clinical education based on quality indicators and to describe the students' experiences of what facilitated or hindered the learning process during their clinical practice. During autumn 2012 and spring 2013, 269 student evaluations with quantitative and qualitative answers were filled out anonymously. Quantitative data from the questionnaires concerning the quality indicators: Administration/information, Assessments/examinations and Reflection were processed to generate descriptive statistics that revealed gaps in what the preceptor model demands and what the students reported. The answers from the qualitative questions concerning the quality indicator Learning were analysed using content analysis. Four categories emerged: Independence and responsibility, continuity of learning, time, and the competence and attitudes of the staff. The study underlines that reflection, continuity, communication and feedback were important for the students' learning process, whereas heavy workload among staff and being supervised by many different preceptors were experienced as stressful and hindering by students.

Prediction of postoperative pain after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is a belief that the amount of pain perceived is merely directly proportional to the extent of injury. The intensity of postoperative pain is however influenced by multiple factors aside from the extent of trauma. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationship between preoperative factors that have been shown to predict postoperative pain and the self-reports of pain intensity in a population of 155 men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), and also to investigate if previous pain score could predict the subsequent pain score. METHODS: The correlation between potential pain predictors and the postoperative pain experiences during three postoperative days was tested (Pitmans' test). By use of a logistic regression analysis the probability that a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score at one occasion would exceed 30 mm or 70 mm was studied, depending on previous VAS score, age, depression and pain treatment method. RESULTS: Age was found to be a predictor of VAS > 30 mm, with younger patients at higher risk for pain, and preoperative depression predicted VAS > 70 mm. The probability that VAS would exceed 30 mm and 70 mm was predicted only by previous VAS value. Day two however, patients with epidural analgesia were at higher risk for experiencing pain than patients with intrathecal or systemic opioid analgesia. CONCLUSION: The results show that it would be meaningful to identify RP patients at high risk for severe postoperative pain; i.e. younger and/or depressive patients who might benefit from a more aggressive therapy instituted in the very early postoperative period.

Postoperative pain management - the influence of surgical ward nurses.

AIM: To compare pain levels reported by patients with those documented by ward nurses and to find out to what extent the amount of opioids given correlated with the pain level. Secondly, to study if pain management and nurses' approaches to this task had improved during a two-year period, including an educational pain treatment program for ward staff. BACKGROUND: The management of postoperative pain continues to remain problematic and unsatisfactory and ward nurses play an important role for this task. DESIGN: The study was a cross-sectional, descriptive, two-part study based on survey data from both patients and nurses on two urology surgical wards. METHODS: Part I of the study included 77 patients and 19 nurses. Part II took place approximately two years later and included 141 patients and 22 nurses. Data were collected the day after surgery by asking patients about 'worst pain' experienced. The pain scores given by the patients were compared with those documented in the patients' records and with the doses of opioids administered. Nurses' approaches to pain management were sought after, by using a categorical questionnaire. RESULTS: The nurses' ability to assess pain in accordance with the patients' reports had increased slightly after two years even if and the number of documented pain scores had decreased. Forty per cent of the nurses reported that they did not use visual analogue scale and that they did not assess pain at both rest and activity, neither did one fourth evaluate the effect of given analgesics. CONCLUSION: The study showed a discrepancy in pain scoring between nurses and patients, where active treatment was related to nurses' documentation rather than to patients' scoring. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The study shows a need for more accurate pain assessment, since the patient experiences and suffers pain and the nurse determines upon treatment.

Pain, psychological distress and health-related quality of life at baseline and 3 months after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate management of postoperative pain is common, and postoperative pain is a risk factor for prolonged pain. In addition to medical and technical factors, psychological factors may also influence the experience of postoperative pain. METHODS: Pain was measured postoperatively at 24, 48, and 72 hr in hospital and after 3 months at home in 140 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Patients answered questionnaires about anxiety and depression (HAD scale) and health-related quality of life (SF-36) at baseline and 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: In the first 3 postoperative days, mild pain was reported by 45 patients (32%), moderate pain by 64 (45%), and severe pain by 31 (22%) on one or more days. High postoperative pain scores were correlated with length of hospital stay and with high pain scores at home. Forty patients (29%) reported moderate (n = 35) or severe (n = 5) pain after discharge from hospital. Patients who experienced anxiety and depression preoperatively had higher postoperative pain scores and remained anxious and depressed 3 months after surgery. The scores for the physical domains in the SF-36 were decreased, while the mental health scores were increased at 3 months. Anxiety and depression were negatively correlated with all domains of the SF-36. CONCLUSION: There is a need for nurses to be aware of the psychological status of RP patients and its impact upon patients' experience of postoperative pain and recovery. The ability to identify patients with psychological distress and to target interventions is an important goal for future research.