Postoperative patient management — how can we make progress?

Prostatectomy patients' postoperative pain assessment in the recovery room

AIM

This paper reports a study to assess the usability and use of different pain assessment tools and to compare patients' and nurses' pain assessments in the recovery room after prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND

Pain assessment is the first step towards providing adequate pain relief but poses problems because of the subjective nature of the pain experience and the lack of quantifiable measurements. Pain tools have been tested in several clinical settings, but not in the recovery room.

METHODS

Data were collected in the recovery room from 45 consecutive patients who had undergone prostatectomy by asking them to evaluate their pain intensity using visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale and verbal expressions. One of two research nurses measured patients' pain at regular intervals and at the same time as the patients. Physiological parameters were also evaluated. Data were analysed as frequencies and percentages. Sum variables were formed and results were analysed using Spearman's rank correlation, Pearson's correlation and with multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients varied in their ability to assess the intensity of their pain using different tools, but assessments were correlated with each other and with nurses' estimations. Nurses and patients obtained similar assessments, but nurses both underestimated and overestimated patients' pain. Patients' verbal assessments varied widely. Patients' and nurses' pain assessments showed no association with patients' pulse or mean arterial blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, it is not totally clear whether pain tools are usable in the recovery room. This issue calls for further research.

Postoperative pain management on surgical wards--do quality assurance strategies result in long-term effects on staff member attitudes and clinical outcomes?

Postoperative pain management (POPM) remains suboptimal on surgical wards in many countries despite the availability of effective analgesics, new technologies for drug administration, and clinical practice guidelines for pain management. The aim of the present study was to assess remaining long-term effects on pain management routines, patient experiences, and staff member attitudes in surgical wards more than 3 years after introduction of a quality assurance program for POPM and compare the findings to those of an organization where a corresponding systematic, entire hospital, quality assurance program had not been completed. A descriptive and comparative design, based on survey data from both patients (N = 110) and staff members (N = 51) on urologic surgery wards, was used. Significant (p <.05 to p <.0002) overall relationships were observed for identified shortages in pain management routines (lack of preoperative information, inadequate preoperative discussions on pain management, wait for pain killer) and reported experience of pain, nausea, or vomiting in the postoperative period. The quality assurance program, anesthesia-based pain services using a nurse-based anesthesiologist-supervised model, resulted in more adequate pain management routines, better patient satisfaction with POPM, and increased confidence in pain management among nurses on the surgical wards. On the basis of the present study it may be concluded that more than 3 years after the introduction of a quality assurance program for POPM in surgical wards, the pain management routines, patient experiences, and staff member attitudes have remained markedly improved and in accordance with the aims of accepted clinical practice guidelines for surgical pain management.

How to implement an acute pain service

To implement a successful acute pain service the following factors are the most important for success: anaesthesiologist-supervised pain nurses and an ongoing educational programme for patients and all health personnel involved in the care of surgical patients. The benefits in increased patient satisfaction and improved outcome after surgery will far outweigh the costs of running an acute pain service that raises standards of pain management throughout the hospital. Optimal use of basic pharmacological analgesia will improve relief of post-operative pain for most surgical patients. More advanced approaches, such as well-tailored epidural analgesia, are needed to relieve severe dynamic pain (e.g. when coughing). This may reduce markedly risks of complications in patients at high risk of developing post-operative respiratory infections and cardiac ischaemic events. More aggressive methods for post-operative pain management need robust routines that will discover the early symptoms and signs of potentially serious complications. High preparedness must be present for swift and correct handling of the rare but potentially catastrophic complications of bleeding and infection in the spinal canal. Chronic pain is common after surgery. Better acute pain relief may reduce this distressing long-term complication of surgery. Research into the long-term effects of optimal neuraxial analgesia and drugs that dampen glutamatergic hyperphenomena (hyperalgesia/allodynia) are urgently needed to verify whether these approaches can reduce the problem of intractable chronic post-operative pain.

Ropivacaine epidural anesthesia and analgesia versus general anesthesia and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in the perioperative management of hip replacement. Ropivacaine Hip Replacement Multicenter Study Group

The aim of our study was to compare epidural anesthesia and analgesia (EDA) with ropivacaine versus general anesthesia followed by IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine (GA/PCA) after hip replacement regarding pain, side effects, and discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. After ethics committee approval, randomization, and informed consent, 90 patients were enrolled. In Group EDA, epidural anesthesia (ropivacaine 10 mg/mL, 15-25 mL) was followed by an epidural infusion (2 mg/mL, 4-6 mL/h for 24 h, plus top-up doses of 6-10 mL for 48 h). GA/PCA patients received general anesthesia (isoflurane/N2O/fentanyl) followed by IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine postoperatively. Pain was assessed by using visual analog scales (0-100 mm) at rest and during physiotherapy. Pain at rest was less in the EDA (n = 43) group than in the GA/PCA (n = 45) group (at 10 h: 11.8+/-12.9 vs. 28.4+/-17.1 [P< 0.001]; at 24 h: 14.3+/-11.7 vs. 24.0+/-17 [P<0.01]; in 48 h: 14.3+/-9.3 vs. 21.1+/-17.4 [P = 0.1]). Whereas EDA patients were deemed ready for discharge from the postanesthesia care unit earlier than GA/PCA patients (5.6+/-8.9 vs. 39.7+/-41.5 min), the actual discharge time was comparable. The median time for first passage of flatus was shorter in the EDA group than in the GA/PCA group (26 vs. 47 h). Nausea and vomiting were more common in the GA/PCA group than in the EDA group (16% vs. 28% and 11% vs. 22%, respectively), whereas hypotension (11% vs. 4%) and bradycardia (14% vs. 2%) were less frequent. Under the conditions of the present study, EDA with ropivacaine provided pain control after hip replacement superior to that provided by IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, particularly during the first 24 h. Both approaches to pain management were equally safe.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with general anesthesia and postoperative IV patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, epidural anesthesia and analgesia with the new local anesthetic ropivacaine enables patients to be discharged sooner from a postanesthesia care unit and provides superior pain relief during the first 24 h after hip replacement.