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.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: To optimally target physiotherapy treatment, knowledge of the pre- and postoperative course of functional status in patients undergoing esophagectomy is required. The aim of this prospective longitudinal study was to investigate the course of functional status in patients with esophageal cancer before and after esophagectomy. Materials and methods: Functional status outcome measures of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery between March 2012 and June 2016 were prospectively measured at 3 months and at 1 day before surgery and at 1 week and at 3 months after surgery. Analysis of repeated measurements with the mixed model approach was used to study changes over time. Results: Hundred fifty-five patients were measured at 3 months and at 1 day before surgery, of which 109 (70.3%) at 1 week and 60 (38.7%) at 3 months after surgery. Mean (SD) age at surgery was 63.5 years (9.3), and 122 patients (78.7%) were male. The incidence of postoperative complications was 83 (53.5%). Three months postoperatively, functional status measures returned to baseline levels, except from handgrip strength (beta [95% CI] −6.2 [-11.3 to −1.1]; P = 0.02) and fatigue (4.7 [0.7to 8.7]; P = 0.02). No differences were observed in the course of functional status between patients with and without postoperative complications. Conclusion: Functional status of patients undergoing esophagectomy returned to baseline values three months after surgery, despite the high incidence of postoperative complications. This requires rethinking the concept of prehabilitation, where clearly not all patients benefit from high functional status to prevent postoperative complications.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
