IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v22y2013i5-6p638-647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using mode and maximum values from the Numeric Rating Scale when evaluating postoperative pain management and recovery

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstin Eriksson
  • Lotta Wikström
  • Marianne Lindblad‐Fridh
  • Anders Broström

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To (1) examine the clinical applicability of compiled mode and maximum values from the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) by comparing the correspondence between patient perceptions of pain and pain values from monitoring records, as well as (2) to study the relationship between mode and maximum values and self‐assessed ability for early postoperative recovery. Background. Documentation of pain remains a problem despite recommendations of quality improvements. To examine the correlation between patient perceptions and documented pain therefore becomes important. Few have studied how pain affects recovery. Design. A quantitative cross‐sectional design was used in which 157 postoperative patients answered a questionnaire on pain intensity and recovery. A parallel examination of pain in monitoring records was conducted. Results. A total of 57% had a mode value calculated from records between 0 and 3 on postoperative day 1 and 69% on day 2. A maximum value between 4 and 10 was found in monitoring records for 73% on day 1 and for 67% on day 2. The correspondence between mode value from monitoring records and the patients’ retrospective perceptions was 88% for NRS 0–3 and 92% between maximum value and NRS 4–10. The correlation between documented pain and retrospectively identified pain for mode value of the NRS in all (0–10) was rather weak (r = 0·37), while maximum value had a stronger correlation (r = 0·53). Conclusion. Mode and maximum values could be used as outcome measures when evaluating postoperative pain. Pain affects recovery negatively, but more research is needed to strengthen the evidence for the use and clarify the link between pain and recovery. Relevance to clinical practice. International organisations emphasise the importance of improving pain assessment. Mode and maximum values are easy to compile for nurses and can, together with assessments of how experienced pain levels affect postoperative recovery, improve treatment of postoperative pain.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstin Eriksson & Lotta Wikström & Marianne Lindblad‐Fridh & Anders Broström, 2013. "Using mode and maximum values from the Numeric Rating Scale when evaluating postoperative pain management and recovery," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5-6), pages 638-647, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:5-6:p:638-647
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04225.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04225.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04225.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Åsa Johansson Stark & Andreas Charalambous & Natalja Istomina & Sanna Salanterä & Arun K Sigurdardottir & Panayota Sourtzi & Kirsi Valkeapää & Adelaida Zabalegui & Margareta Bachrach‐Lindström, 2016. "The quality of recovery on discharge from hospital, a comparison between patients undergoing hip and knee replacement – a European study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2489-2501, September.
    2. Lotta Wikström & Kerstin Eriksson & Bengt Fridlund & Mats Nilsson & Kristofer Årestedt & Anders Broström, 2017. "The clinical applicability of a daily summary of patients’ self‐reported postoperative pain—A repeated measure analysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4675-4684, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:22:y:2013:i:5-6:p:638-647. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.