IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i7-8p1323-1331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consistency of postoperative pain assessments between nurses and patients undergoing enhanced recovery after gynaecological surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Yu'E Yang
  • Chang Xiong
  • Ling Xia
  • Si Si Kang
  • Jin Jin Jian
  • Xue Qing Yang
  • Ling Chen
  • Yuan Wang
  • Jin Jin Yu
  • Xi Zhong Xu

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore the consistency of pain intensity and pain location assessed by nurses and patients in gynaecology undergoing enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Background Several studies have shown that clinical nurses' assessment of patients' pain is not always accurate. Little is known about the accuracy of nurses' pain assessments for gynaecological patients. Postoperative pain assessment and management is an essential part of enhanced recovery after surgery. Design Comparative cross‐sectional study. Methods A total of 160 patients were recruited and only 85 patients and 17 nurses participated. Patients and nurses recorded pain scores (using an 11‐point Numeric Rating Scale) and pain location (incision pain, surgical area pain in the abdominal cavity, other pain or no pain) on Pain Assessment Forms at 4 hr after surgery and on the first and second postoperative days. We used the STROBE guidelines to report our study. Results The patients' pain score was higher than that of nurses from 4 hr to second day after laparoscopic surgery at rest. The pain scores of both nurses and patients decreased over this period of time. All the intraclass correlation coefficients were between 0.214–0.296. At the three time points, surgical area pain in the abdominal cavity and abdominal incision pain were the main pain areas. All the kappa coefficients were between 0.164–0.255. Conclusions The consistency of postoperative pain assessment about pain score and pain location between nurses and patients was not high. We should attach importance to systematic pain assessment, and more detailed enhanced recovery after surgery pathways should be developed about pain assessment. Relevance to clinical practice Continuing education for nurses regarding pain assessment is necessary. Nurses should accept the patient's self‐reported pain. There should be a step that gives more time for pain assessment in enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu'E Yang & Chang Xiong & Ling Xia & Si Si Kang & Jin Jin Jian & Xue Qing Yang & Ling Chen & Yuan Wang & Jin Jin Yu & Xi Zhong Xu, 2020. "Consistency of postoperative pain assessments between nurses and patients undergoing enhanced recovery after gynaecological surgery," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1323-1331, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:7-8:p:1323-1331
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15200
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15200?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirsten Kaptain & Vibeke Bregnballe & Pia Dreyer, 2017. "Patient participation in postoperative pain assessment after spine surgery in a recovery unit," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(19-20), pages 2986-2994, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:29:y:2020:i:7-8:p:1323-1331. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.