实施《最佳实践指南》建议以控制肿瘤住院患者疼痛的效果。

Ana-Isabel Alcañiz-Mesas , María-Victoria Ruiz-García , María-Pilar Córcoles-Jiménez , María-José Caballero-García , María Teresa González Álvarez
{"title":"实施《最佳实践指南》建议以控制肿瘤住院患者疼痛的效果。","authors":"Ana-Isabel Alcañiz-Mesas ,&nbsp;María-Victoria Ruiz-García ,&nbsp;María-Pilar Córcoles-Jiménez ,&nbsp;María-José Caballero-García ,&nbsp;María Teresa González Álvarez","doi":"10.1016/j.enfcle.2024.11.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Clinical Best Practice Guideline (BPG) “Assessment and Management of Pain” recommendations for pain control in oncological/oncohaematological hospitalized patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Ambispective cohort study. Sample and Setting: Adults admitted to oncological unit in Hospital of Albacete.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>Implementation of GBP recommendations. Variables: 1) Demographic data. 2)On implementation of GBP recommendations. 3) Outcome in patients: pain intensity in the first 24 h after admission and maximum intensity during admission Tools: Numeric and Visual Scales. Data collection: indicators exported from clinical history for evaluation of the BPSO® program. Ethical aspects: anonymous data. Data analysis (SPSS®): Descriptive during periods: baseline (T0 = December 2015); initial (T1 = 2017); consolidation (T2 = 2018–2019); sustainability (T3 = 2021–2022). Measurements of central tendency and dispersion, absolute and relative frequencies. Comparison of proportions (Chi-Square) and averages (Student t-test, ANOVA). Statistical significance: p &lt; 0.05.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Included 572 patients, 61.5% (352) men. Daily intervention of pain detection was performed in 94.6% (538) of patients (20%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 98.4%–T2; 91.2%–T3; p &lt; 0.001), pain assessment using an appropriate scale in 97.6% (558) (0%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 99.2%–T2; 100%–T3; p &lt; 0.001); 93.7% (535) had a care plan for assessment and management of pain (0%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 96.3%–T2; 92.3%–T3; p &lt; 0.001). The percentage of patients who had severe pain (6–10) during the first 24 hours was reduced from T1 to T3 (5.1%–T1; 6.6%–T2; 2.1%–T3; p = 0.145), but throughout hospitalization increased from T1 to T3 (19.2%–T1; 17%–T2; 22.5%–T3; p = 0.21).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Implementation of recommendations has led to a statistically significant improvement over the periods in the study; however, no effectiveness has been shown to reduce pain intensity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72917,"journal":{"name":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","volume":"34 6","pages":"Pages 448-457"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of implementing a Best Practice Guideline recommendations to manage pain in oncological hospitalized patients\",\"authors\":\"Ana-Isabel Alcañiz-Mesas ,&nbsp;María-Victoria Ruiz-García ,&nbsp;María-Pilar Córcoles-Jiménez ,&nbsp;María-José Caballero-García ,&nbsp;María Teresa González Álvarez\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.enfcle.2024.11.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Clinical Best Practice Guideline (BPG) “Assessment and Management of Pain” recommendations for pain control in oncological/oncohaematological hospitalized patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Ambispective cohort study. Sample and Setting: Adults admitted to oncological unit in Hospital of Albacete.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>Implementation of GBP recommendations. Variables: 1) Demographic data. 2)On implementation of GBP recommendations. 3) Outcome in patients: pain intensity in the first 24 h after admission and maximum intensity during admission Tools: Numeric and Visual Scales. Data collection: indicators exported from clinical history for evaluation of the BPSO® program. Ethical aspects: anonymous data. Data analysis (SPSS®): Descriptive during periods: baseline (T0 = December 2015); initial (T1 = 2017); consolidation (T2 = 2018–2019); sustainability (T3 = 2021–2022). Measurements of central tendency and dispersion, absolute and relative frequencies. Comparison of proportions (Chi-Square) and averages (Student t-test, ANOVA). Statistical significance: p &lt; 0.05.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Included 572 patients, 61.5% (352) men. Daily intervention of pain detection was performed in 94.6% (538) of patients (20%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 98.4%–T2; 91.2%–T3; p &lt; 0.001), pain assessment using an appropriate scale in 97.6% (558) (0%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 99.2%–T2; 100%–T3; p &lt; 0.001); 93.7% (535) had a care plan for assessment and management of pain (0%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 96.3%–T2; 92.3%–T3; p &lt; 0.001). The percentage of patients who had severe pain (6–10) during the first 24 hours was reduced from T1 to T3 (5.1%–T1; 6.6%–T2; 2.1%–T3; p = 0.145), but throughout hospitalization increased from T1 to T3 (19.2%–T1; 17%–T2; 22.5%–T3; p = 0.21).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Implementation of recommendations has led to a statistically significant improvement over the periods in the study; however, no effectiveness has been shown to reduce pain intensity.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72917,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)\",\"volume\":\"34 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 448-457\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2445147924000924\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Enfermeria clinica (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2445147924000924","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估《临床最佳实践指南》(BPG)"疼痛的评估和管理 "建议对肿瘤/血液病住院患者疼痛控制的实施效果:方法:前瞻性队列研究:干预措施:实施 GBP 建议:变量:1)人口统计学数据。2)GBP建议的实施情况。3)患者的结果:入院后 24 小时内的疼痛强度和入院期间的最大疼痛强度:数据收集:从临床病历中导出指标,用于评估 BPSO® 程序。伦理方面:匿名数据。数据分析(SPSS®):描述性期间:基线(T0 = 2015 年 12 月);初始(T1 = 2017 年);巩固(T2 = 2018-2019 年);持续(T3 = 2021-2022 年)。中心倾向和离散度、绝对频率和相对频率的测量。比例(Chi-Square)和平均数(学生 t 检验、方差分析)的比较。统计学意义:P 结果:共纳入 572 名患者,61.5%(352 名)为男性。94.6%(538 人)的患者进行了疼痛检测的日常干预(20%-T0;98.3%-T1;98.4%-T2;91.2%-T3;P 结论:在研究期间,建议的实施带来了统计学意义上的显著改善;然而,并没有显示出降低疼痛强度的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of implementing a Best Practice Guideline recommendations to manage pain in oncological hospitalized patients

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Clinical Best Practice Guideline (BPG) “Assessment and Management of Pain” recommendations for pain control in oncological/oncohaematological hospitalized patients.

Methods

Ambispective cohort study. Sample and Setting: Adults admitted to oncological unit in Hospital of Albacete.

Intervention

Implementation of GBP recommendations. Variables: 1) Demographic data. 2)On implementation of GBP recommendations. 3) Outcome in patients: pain intensity in the first 24 h after admission and maximum intensity during admission Tools: Numeric and Visual Scales. Data collection: indicators exported from clinical history for evaluation of the BPSO® program. Ethical aspects: anonymous data. Data analysis (SPSS®): Descriptive during periods: baseline (T0 = December 2015); initial (T1 = 2017); consolidation (T2 = 2018–2019); sustainability (T3 = 2021–2022). Measurements of central tendency and dispersion, absolute and relative frequencies. Comparison of proportions (Chi-Square) and averages (Student t-test, ANOVA). Statistical significance: p < 0.05.

Results

Included 572 patients, 61.5% (352) men. Daily intervention of pain detection was performed in 94.6% (538) of patients (20%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 98.4%–T2; 91.2%–T3; p < 0.001), pain assessment using an appropriate scale in 97.6% (558) (0%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 99.2%–T2; 100%–T3; p < 0.001); 93.7% (535) had a care plan for assessment and management of pain (0%–T0; 98.3%–T1; 96.3%–T2; 92.3%–T3; p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who had severe pain (6–10) during the first 24 hours was reduced from T1 to T3 (5.1%–T1; 6.6%–T2; 2.1%–T3; p = 0.145), but throughout hospitalization increased from T1 to T3 (19.2%–T1; 17%–T2; 22.5%–T3; p = 0.21).

Conclusions

Implementation of recommendations has led to a statistically significant improvement over the periods in the study; however, no effectiveness has been shown to reduce pain intensity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信