Subjective Versus Objective Pain Assessment in the Postpartum Period: Improving Pain Control After Vaginal Delivery [ID: 1378006]

Kali Stewart, Alexander M. Hincker, L. Holroyd, R. Rimsza, A. Veade
{"title":"Subjective Versus Objective Pain Assessment in the Postpartum Period: Improving Pain Control After Vaginal Delivery [ID: 1378006]","authors":"Kali Stewart, Alexander M. Hincker, L. Holroyd, R. Rimsza, A. Veade","doi":"10.1097/01.aog.0000930632.45067.94","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: The numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) is a validated measure to quantify acute pain; however, its utility after vaginal delivery is unclear. Poorly controlled postpartum pain can increase rates of complications; therefore, pain control is paramount. We investigated how subjective pain relates to objective pain in the postpartum period. METHODS: A prospective, observational study at a single academic hospital included patients with vaginal deliveries February to October 2021. Women with opioid use disorder, wound complication, hysterectomy, or readmission were excluded. Subjective pain assessment and NPRS were completed 2 weeks postdischarge. Subjective pain was recorded as “well controlled” versus “poorly controlled.” The numerical pain rating scale was scored 0–10. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight patients were included, and 174 (73%) followed up. One hundred twenty (69%) reported “well-controlled” pain, and 54 (31%) reported “poorly controlled.” There was no significant difference in delivery mode, laceration, or nonopioid medication use (P>.05). Patients who used oxycodone were significantly more likely to report “poorly controlled” pain (P=.02). “Poorly controlled” pain was associated with higher median NPRS score (5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4–6] versus 2 [IQR 0–3], P<.001). Among patients with “poorly controlled” pain, 11 (20.4%) had NPRS scores of 0–3. Of those who reported “well-controlled” pain, 22 (18.3%) had NPRS scores of 4–10. CONCLUSION: While NPRS scores were higher for patients with “poorly controlled” pain, this was not universal. It is critical to accurately respond to postpartum pain for the nearly 20% of patients whose subjective experience did not correlate with their objective score. Titrating pain control to subjective and objective goals may improve patient experience and outcomes.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000930632.45067.94","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) is a validated measure to quantify acute pain; however, its utility after vaginal delivery is unclear. Poorly controlled postpartum pain can increase rates of complications; therefore, pain control is paramount. We investigated how subjective pain relates to objective pain in the postpartum period. METHODS: A prospective, observational study at a single academic hospital included patients with vaginal deliveries February to October 2021. Women with opioid use disorder, wound complication, hysterectomy, or readmission were excluded. Subjective pain assessment and NPRS were completed 2 weeks postdischarge. Subjective pain was recorded as “well controlled” versus “poorly controlled.” The numerical pain rating scale was scored 0–10. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight patients were included, and 174 (73%) followed up. One hundred twenty (69%) reported “well-controlled” pain, and 54 (31%) reported “poorly controlled.” There was no significant difference in delivery mode, laceration, or nonopioid medication use (P>.05). Patients who used oxycodone were significantly more likely to report “poorly controlled” pain (P=.02). “Poorly controlled” pain was associated with higher median NPRS score (5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4–6] versus 2 [IQR 0–3], P<.001). Among patients with “poorly controlled” pain, 11 (20.4%) had NPRS scores of 0–3. Of those who reported “well-controlled” pain, 22 (18.3%) had NPRS scores of 4–10. CONCLUSION: While NPRS scores were higher for patients with “poorly controlled” pain, this was not universal. It is critical to accurately respond to postpartum pain for the nearly 20% of patients whose subjective experience did not correlate with their objective score. Titrating pain control to subjective and objective goals may improve patient experience and outcomes.
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
产后疼痛的主观与客观评估:阴道分娩后疼痛控制的改善[j]
数字疼痛评定量表(NPRS)是一种有效的量化急性疼痛的方法;然而,它在阴道分娩后的效用尚不清楚。产后疼痛控制不当会增加并发症的发生率;因此,疼痛控制是至关重要的。我们调查了产后主观疼痛与客观疼痛的关系。方法:在一家学术医院进行一项前瞻性观察性研究,纳入2021年2月至10月阴道分娩的患者。排除有阿片类药物使用障碍、伤口并发症、子宫切除术或再入院的妇女。出院后2周完成主观疼痛评估和NPRS。主观疼痛被记录为“控制良好”和“控制不佳”。数值疼痛评定量表评分0-10分。结果:纳入238例患者,随访174例(73%)。120人(69%)报告“控制良好”的疼痛,54人(31%)报告“控制不佳”。两组在递送方式、撕裂伤及非阿片类药物使用方面均无显著差异(P> 0.05)。使用羟考酮的患者更有可能报告“控制不良”的疼痛(P= 0.02)。“控制不良”疼痛与较高的中位NPRS评分相关(5[四分位间距(IQR) 4-6]对2 [IQR 0-3], P< 0.001)。在疼痛“控制不良”的患者中,11例(20.4%)患者的NPRS评分为0-3分。在报告疼痛“控制良好”的患者中,22例(18.3%)的NPRS评分为4-10分。结论:尽管“控制不良”疼痛患者的NPRS评分较高,但这并非普遍现象。对于近20%的主观经验与客观评分不相关的患者来说,准确应对产后疼痛是至关重要的。根据主观和客观目标调整疼痛控制可以改善患者的体验和结果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Author Agreement. A Prospective Study to Assess for Histologic Changes on Vulvar Biopsies in Postmenopausal Women With Lichen Sclerosus Treated With Fractionated CO2 Laser Therapy [ID: 1339895] Prescribing Patterns for Postpartum Contraception Among Breastfeeding Patients Insured Under Medicaid [ID: 1375071] Evaluation of Perioperative Factors Contributing to Organ Space Surgical Site Infection After Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy [ID: 1374862] Delays in Diagnosis and Treatment of Appendicitis in Females [ID: 1375790]
×
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