Real world patient-reported and health care professional-perceived pain severity in outpatient fracture clinic procedures

Lauren Milton, Etinosa Oliogu, Samuel Finkelstein, Liying Zhang, Lucas Azevedo, Tara Behroozian, Albert Yee, Patrick Henry, Edward Chow, Joel Finkelstein
{"title":"Real world patient-reported and health care professional-perceived pain severity in outpatient fracture clinic procedures","authors":"Lauren Milton, Etinosa Oliogu, Samuel Finkelstein, Liying Zhang, Lucas Azevedo, Tara Behroozian, Albert Yee, Patrick Henry, Edward Chow, Joel Finkelstein","doi":"10.1177/22104917231203340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Management of orthopaedic fractures involves acute intervention and follow up through to recovery. Patient-centered care needs to encompass all aspects of this treatment. Limited research is available on outpatient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes from fracture clinic (FRCL). The purpose of this evaluation is to report on pain levels perceived by patients from minor orthopaedic procedures that were necessary for the continued management of fracture care. Methods Patients were recruited in the FRCL if they were planned to undergo minor orthopaedic procedures. They were asked to report the pain they experienced at baseline, during the procedure, 20 min post-procedure, and 24 h following the procedure on a verbal numeric rating scale of 0–10. Healthcare professionals (HCP) were then asked to rank their perception of the severity of pain from each procedure type. Finally, qualitative interviews were conducted on a convenience sample of patients. Results 51 patients were included in this evaluation. Halo pin, external fixation device, Kirschner wire, and screw removal exhibited a mean increase in pain from baseline greater than 3 units during the procedure. The external fixation device removal group showed the greatest pain reported with a statistically significant increase from baseline to the end of the procedure (mean = 7.1; p = 0.002). There was good concordance of pain perception by the HCP to patient experience. Qualitative interviewing revealed two major themes. Discussion This study provided valuable qualitative and quantitative insight into the pain perceptions by FRCL patients. This data may help improve the patient experience inside the FRCL.","PeriodicalId":42408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917231203340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Management of orthopaedic fractures involves acute intervention and follow up through to recovery. Patient-centered care needs to encompass all aspects of this treatment. Limited research is available on outpatient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes from fracture clinic (FRCL). The purpose of this evaluation is to report on pain levels perceived by patients from minor orthopaedic procedures that were necessary for the continued management of fracture care. Methods Patients were recruited in the FRCL if they were planned to undergo minor orthopaedic procedures. They were asked to report the pain they experienced at baseline, during the procedure, 20 min post-procedure, and 24 h following the procedure on a verbal numeric rating scale of 0–10. Healthcare professionals (HCP) were then asked to rank their perception of the severity of pain from each procedure type. Finally, qualitative interviews were conducted on a convenience sample of patients. Results 51 patients were included in this evaluation. Halo pin, external fixation device, Kirschner wire, and screw removal exhibited a mean increase in pain from baseline greater than 3 units during the procedure. The external fixation device removal group showed the greatest pain reported with a statistically significant increase from baseline to the end of the procedure (mean = 7.1; p = 0.002). There was good concordance of pain perception by the HCP to patient experience. Qualitative interviewing revealed two major themes. Discussion This study provided valuable qualitative and quantitative insight into the pain perceptions by FRCL patients. This data may help improve the patient experience inside the FRCL.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
真实世界患者报告和卫生保健专业人员感知的门诊骨折治疗过程中的疼痛严重程度
骨科骨折的治疗包括急性干预和随访直至康复。以病人为中心的护理需要涵盖这种治疗的所有方面。关于骨折门诊患者满意度和患者报告结果的研究有限。本评估的目的是报告患者在进行小型骨科手术后感受到的疼痛程度,这些手术对骨折护理的持续管理是必要的。方法在FRCL中招募计划进行小型骨科手术的患者。他们被要求报告他们在基线、手术中、手术后20分钟和手术后24小时所经历的疼痛,并以0-10的口头数字评分量表进行评分。然后要求医疗保健专业人员(HCP)对每种手术类型的疼痛严重程度进行排序。最后,对方便的患者样本进行定性访谈。结果51例患者纳入评估。光晕针、外固定装置、克氏针和螺钉取出术中疼痛比基线平均增加超过3个单位。外固定装置移除组显示出最大的疼痛,从基线到手术结束有统计学意义的增加(平均= 7.1;P = 0.002)。HCP的疼痛感知与患者体验有良好的一致性。定性访谈揭示了两个主要主题。本研究为FRCL患者的疼痛感知提供了有价值的定性和定量见解。这些数据可能有助于改善患者在FRCL内的体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ultrasonic measurement for the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome: A study in the Hong Kong Chinese population The surgical outcome of postoperative radial neck nonunion: Retrospective case series with systematic review Tip-to-apex distance does not predict fixation failure regardless of reduction quality in intra-capsular neck of femur fractures treated with femoral neck system Real world patient-reported and health care professional-perceived pain severity in outpatient fracture clinic procedures Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on sports and arthroscopic surgery in local hospitals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1