Background: In postoperative pain treatment patients are asked to rate their pain experience on a single uni-dimensional pain scale. Such pain scores are also used as indicator to assess the quality of pain treatment. However, patients may differ in how they interpret the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score. Objectives: This study examines how patients assign a number to their currently experienced postoperative pain and which considerations influence this process. Methods: A qualitative approach according to grounded theory was used. Twenty-seven patients were interviewed one day after surgery. Results: Three main themes emerged that influenced the Numeric Rating Scale scores (0–10) that patients actually reported to professionals: score-related factors, intrapersonal factors, and the anticipated consequences of a given pain score. Anticipated consequences were analgesic administration—which could be desired or undesired—and possible judgements by professionals. We also propose a conceptual model for the relationship between factors that influence the pain rating process. Based on patients’ score-related and intrapersonal factors, a preliminary pain score was ‘‘internally’’ set. Before reporting the pain score to the healthcare professional, patients considered the anticipated consequences (i.e., expected judgements by professionals and anticipation of analgesic administration) of current Numeric Rating Scale scores. Conclusions: This study provides insight into the process of how patients translate their current postoperative pain into a numeric rating score. The proposed model may help professionals to understand the factors that influence a given Numeric Rating Scale score and suggest the most appropriate questions for clarification. In this way, patients and professionals may arrive at a shared understanding of the pain score, resulting in a tailored decision regarding the most appropriate treatment of current postoperative pain, particularly the dosing and timing of opioid administration.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the prevalence of phantom (limb) pain over time and to analyse factors associated with phantom (limb) pain in a prospective cohort of amputees.DESIGN: A multicentre longitudinal study.PATIENTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients scheduled for amputation were included.METHODS: Patients filled in questionnaires before amputation, and postal questionnaires six months, 1(1/2) years and 2(1/2) years to a maximum of 3(1/2) years after amputation. Preoperative assessment included patients' characteristics, date, side and level of, and reason for amputation. The follow-up questionnaires assessed the frequencies of the experienced phantom pain, prosthetic use and walking distance. The occurrence of phantom pain was defined as phantom pain a few times a day or more frequently.RESULTS: Pre- and postoperative questionnaires were available filled in by 85 amputees (33 females and 52 males). The percentage of lower limb amputees with phantom pain was the highest at six months after amputation, and of upper limb amputees at 1(1/2) years. In general, more women than men experienced phantom pain. One and a half years and 2(1/2) years after amputation the highest percentages of the lower limb amputees used their prosthesis more than 4 hours a day (66%), after that time this percentage decreased to 60%. The results of the two-level logistic regression analysis to predict phantom pain show that phantom pain was less frequently present in men (odds ratio (OR) = 0.12), in lower limb amputees (OR = 0.14) and that it decreased in due course (OR = 0.53 for 1 year).CONCLUSION: Protective factors for phantom pain are: being male, having a lower limb amputation and the time elapsed since amputation.
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on preoperative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on postoperative interventions (one review assessed both pre-postoperative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre-and-postoperative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
