美学后护理病房镇痛给药的疼痛评估工具和数值评定量表阈值的比较。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jopan.2024.10.003
Ella Hermie, Charlotte Boydens, Annelies Van Damme, Jorien De Loor, Koen Lapage
{"title":"美学后护理病房镇痛给药的疼痛评估工具和数值评定量表阈值的比较。","authors":"Ella Hermie, Charlotte Boydens, Annelies Van Damme, Jorien De Loor, Koen Lapage","doi":"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). Additionally, the study aimed to determine NRS threshold values for both mild analgesic administration (= without risk of nausea and vomiting [NV] side effects) and strong analgesic administration (= with risk of NV side effects) in the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, observational study design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted between August 2019 and April 2022. Patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the correlation between the VAS, NRS, and VRS, assessed at PACU admission and discharge. Secondary outcomes included pain evolution, desire for analgesic administration with or without risk of NV side effects, and preferred tool for pain assessment.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>VAS, NRS, and VRS were significantly correlated (r = 0.82 to 0.94, P < .001) at both PACU admission and discharge. The median VAS scores significantly improved from 32 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9 to 22) at PACU admission to 27 (IQR: 8 to 39) at PACU discharge (P < .001), while the median NRS scores significantly improved from 3 (IQR: 1 to 6) at PACU admission to 3 (IQR: 1 to 4) at PACU discharge (P < .001). At PACU admission, receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis indicated that an optimal NRS threshold value for the administration of a mild analgesic (= without risk of NV side effects) was greater than 2, and greater than 5 for the administration of a strong analgesic (= with risk of NV side effects). At PACU discharge, patients reported a preferred median NRS score of 5 to be treated with a mild analgesic (= without risk of NV side effects), and a preferred median NRS score of 8 to be treated with a strong analgesic (= with risk of NV side effects).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three pain assessment tools can be used to evaluate postoperative pain in the PACU setting during the recovery from general anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":49028,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Pain Assessment Tools and Numeric Rating Scale Thresholds for Analgesic Administration in the Postanaesthetic Care Unit.\",\"authors\":\"Ella Hermie, Charlotte Boydens, Annelies Van Damme, Jorien De Loor, Koen Lapage\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jopan.2024.10.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). Additionally, the study aimed to determine NRS threshold values for both mild analgesic administration (= without risk of nausea and vomiting [NV] side effects) and strong analgesic administration (= with risk of NV side effects) in the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, observational study design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted between August 2019 and April 2022. Patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the correlation between the VAS, NRS, and VRS, assessed at PACU admission and discharge. Secondary outcomes included pain evolution, desire for analgesic administration with or without risk of NV side effects, and preferred tool for pain assessment.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>VAS, NRS, and VRS were significantly correlated (r = 0.82 to 0.94, P < .001) at both PACU admission and discharge. The median VAS scores significantly improved from 32 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9 to 22) at PACU admission to 27 (IQR: 8 to 39) at PACU discharge (P < .001), while the median NRS scores significantly improved from 3 (IQR: 1 to 6) at PACU admission to 3 (IQR: 1 to 4) at PACU discharge (P < .001). At PACU admission, receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis indicated that an optimal NRS threshold value for the administration of a mild analgesic (= without risk of NV side effects) was greater than 2, and greater than 5 for the administration of a strong analgesic (= with risk of NV side effects). At PACU discharge, patients reported a preferred median NRS score of 5 to be treated with a mild analgesic (= without risk of NV side effects), and a preferred median NRS score of 8 to be treated with a strong analgesic (= with risk of NV side effects).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three pain assessment tools can be used to evaluate postoperative pain in the PACU setting during the recovery from general anesthesia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2024.10.003\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2024.10.003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨视觉模拟量表(VAS)、数字评定量表(NRS)和言语评定量表(VRS)的相关性。此外,该研究旨在确定术后护理病房(PACU)中轻度镇痛(无恶心和呕吐[NV]副作用风险)和强烈镇痛(有NV副作用风险)的NRS阈值。设计:前瞻性观察性研究设计。方法:研究时间为2019年8月至2022年4月。在全麻下计划择期手术的患者也包括在内。主要结局是在PACU入院和出院时评估VAS、NRS和VRS之间的相关性。次要结局包括疼痛演变、是否有或无NV副作用风险的镇痛意愿,以及首选的疼痛评估工具。结果:VAS、NRS和VRS具有显著相关性(r = 0.82 ~ 0.94, P)。结论:三种疼痛评估工具均可用于PACU全麻恢复后的术后疼痛评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Pain Assessment Tools and Numeric Rating Scale Thresholds for Analgesic Administration in the Postanaesthetic Care Unit.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). Additionally, the study aimed to determine NRS threshold values for both mild analgesic administration (= without risk of nausea and vomiting [NV] side effects) and strong analgesic administration (= with risk of NV side effects) in the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU).

Design: Prospective, observational study design.

Methods: The study was conducted between August 2019 and April 2022. Patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the correlation between the VAS, NRS, and VRS, assessed at PACU admission and discharge. Secondary outcomes included pain evolution, desire for analgesic administration with or without risk of NV side effects, and preferred tool for pain assessment.

Findings: VAS, NRS, and VRS were significantly correlated (r = 0.82 to 0.94, P < .001) at both PACU admission and discharge. The median VAS scores significantly improved from 32 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9 to 22) at PACU admission to 27 (IQR: 8 to 39) at PACU discharge (P < .001), while the median NRS scores significantly improved from 3 (IQR: 1 to 6) at PACU admission to 3 (IQR: 1 to 4) at PACU discharge (P < .001). At PACU admission, receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis indicated that an optimal NRS threshold value for the administration of a mild analgesic (= without risk of NV side effects) was greater than 2, and greater than 5 for the administration of a strong analgesic (= with risk of NV side effects). At PACU discharge, patients reported a preferred median NRS score of 5 to be treated with a mild analgesic (= without risk of NV side effects), and a preferred median NRS score of 8 to be treated with a strong analgesic (= with risk of NV side effects).

Conclusions: All three pain assessment tools can be used to evaluate postoperative pain in the PACU setting during the recovery from general anesthesia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
17.60%
发文量
279
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing provides original, peer-reviewed research for a primary audience that includes nurses in perianesthesia settings, including ambulatory surgery, preadmission testing, postanesthesia care (Phases I and II), extended observation, and pain management. The Journal provides a forum for sharing professional knowledge and experience relating to management, ethics, legislation, research, and other aspects of perianesthesia nursing.
期刊最新文献
Preoperative Anxiety and Information Needs Among Patients in the Preoperative Holding Area. Implementation of an Evidence-based Protocol to Increase the Use of Goal-directed Hemodynamic Therapy. Implementation of Perioperative Anesthesia Considerations for Military Veterans Who Consume Cannabis: A Quality Improvement Project. Effect of Magnetic Ball Pressing Combined With TEAS on Postoperative Nausea, Pain, Comfort, and Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Postoperative Thirst in Surgical Patients: A Bibliometric Study.
×
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