Reiki for Pain During Hemodialysis: A Feasibility and Instrument Evaluation Study.

PURPOSE: Pain is a problem for individuals undergoing hemodialysis. Renal disease, comorbidities, concurrent symptoms, and dialysis procedures pose barriers to adequate pain management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate feasibility, examine construct validity of The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive testing (CAT) instruments, and explore pain benefits of Reiki sessions conducted during hemodialysis. DESIGN: A one group, repeated-measures design was used. METHOD: Fifteen participants received Reiki for 20 minutes, twice a week for 4 weeks. Pain, fatigue, and depression were evaluated using established symptom scales and PROMIS CAT instruments. FINDINGS: Participants reported general relaxation feelings with Reiki and acceptability of using a touch-screen device to respond to web-based measures. Although staff were initially reluctant to engage patients for Reiki, they reported Reiki did not interfere with workflow and thought Reiki could be integrated into the practice setting. Significant, strong correlations with established symptom scales support construct validity of PROMIS CAT instruments. There was a significant decrease in mean symptom scores after four weeks of Reiki. Effect size values suggest a range of practical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest Reiki provides symptom relief for individuals receiving hemodialysis, and randomized clinical trials to establish Reiki's pain benefits in this population are warranted.

Complementary Therapies for Pain Among Individuals Receiving Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review.

Pain is a major problem for individuals undergoing hemodialysis and can lead to decreased quality of life when ineffectively managed. Pain is often reported as burdensome; thus, nurses must learn effective, nonpharmacological adjuncts to help care for symptomatic patients. The purpose of this review was to identify non-pharmacologic complementary therapies and evaluate their effectiveness in minimizing pain among individuals undergoing hemodialysis. Multiple complementary interventions were identified, and several reduced pain, but evidence is qualified by limitations in study methods. Complementary therapies have the potential to reduce pain among individuals undergoing hemodialysis; however, more research is needed.

Comparison of Cervical Range-of-Motion Restriction and Craniofacial Tissue-Interface Pressure With 2 Adjustable and 2 Standard Cervical Collars.

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare and contrast the restrictiveness and tissue-interface pressure (TIP) characteristics of 2 standard and 2 adjustable cervical collars. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: This study compared the restrictiveness and TIP of 4 commercially available cervical collars (2 standard and 2 adjustable). Adjustable collars offer potential advantages of individualized fit for patients and decreased inventory for institutions. The overall goal was to determine whether the adjustable collars provided the same benefits of cervical range-of-motion (CROM) restriction as the standard collars without increasing TIP and risk of pressure-related complications. METHODS: A total of 48 adult volunteer subjects (24 men and 24 women) were fitted with 4 collars (Aspen, Aspen Vista, Miami J, and Miami J Advanced) in random order. Data collection included assessment of CROM restrictiveness and measurement of TIP on the mandible and occiput in upright and supine positions. The experimental, repeated measures design stratified the sample by body mass index (BMI) and sex. RESULTS: All collars restricted CROM as compared with no collar (P ≤ 0.001 each). Aspen was more restrictive than Aspen Vista and Miami J in 4 movement planes (P ≤ 0.003 each), but not significantly different from Miami J Advanced. The Miami J standard collar was associated with significantly lower peak TIPs on all sites and in all positions compared with Aspen (P ≤ 0.001), Miami J Advanced (P < 0.001), and Aspen Vista (P = 0.01 for mandible site and upright position, P < 0.001 for remaining sites and positions). Increased peak TIP correlated with high BMI across all collar types, but was significantly lower for the Miami J collar than the Aspen collar. CONCLUSION: All collars, compared with no collar, significantly restricted CROM. Although the collar-to-collar comparisons were statistically significant, the differences may have little clinical significance in the acutely injured trauma patient. The Miami J standard collar had the lowest overall TIP in both sites and positions. Ongoing effort should be devoted to staff education in proper sizing and fit, particularly for patients with high BMI.