{"title":"教育工具对患者自控镇痛装置使用的影响。","authors":"Olcayto Uysal, Serkan Karaman, Tuğba Karaman","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2022.22988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In the literature, there are confusing data about educational tools and device use. Therefore, it is not clear which method is superior to the other. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of educational tools on patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) usage in patients undergoing hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-six patients undergoing hysterectomy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to a group (verbal, brochure, or video) consisting of 32 patients each using the closed envelope method. After operations, all patients were sent to the ward and evaluated with numerical rating scale score for pain at 15<sup>th</sup> min., 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 12<sup>th</sup>, 18<sup>th</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 12<sup>th</sup>, 18<sup>th</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> hours. Given dose, the number of button presses, presence of nausea and vomiting, and static and dynamic pain scores were recorded. During visits, patients who had a pain score ≥4 were administered paracetamol 1 g IV. Ondansetron 8 mg IV was injected into patients who had nausea and vomiting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were determined in resting and dynamic pain scores, number of button presses, and given doses between groups at 15<sup>th</sup> min., 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 12<sup>th</sup>, 18<sup>th</sup>, 24<sup>t</sup>h hours.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, education type did not affect PCA device use. We believe that whatever method the infrastructure of hospitals is suitable for, should be used for PCA device education.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":"51 3","pages":"243-248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10339749/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Educational Tools on the use of Patient-Controlled Analgesia Devices.\",\"authors\":\"Olcayto Uysal, Serkan Karaman, Tuğba Karaman\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/TJAR.2022.22988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In the literature, there are confusing data about educational tools and device use. Therefore, it is not clear which method is superior to the other. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of educational tools on patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) usage in patients undergoing hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-six patients undergoing hysterectomy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to a group (verbal, brochure, or video) consisting of 32 patients each using the closed envelope method. After operations, all patients were sent to the ward and evaluated with numerical rating scale score for pain at 15<sup>th</sup> min., 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 12<sup>th</sup>, 18<sup>th</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 12<sup>th</sup>, 18<sup>th</sup>, 24<sup>th</sup> hours. Given dose, the number of button presses, presence of nausea and vomiting, and static and dynamic pain scores were recorded. During visits, patients who had a pain score ≥4 were administered paracetamol 1 g IV. Ondansetron 8 mg IV was injected into patients who had nausea and vomiting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were determined in resting and dynamic pain scores, number of button presses, and given doses between groups at 15<sup>th</sup> min., 2<sup>nd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 12<sup>th</sup>, 18<sup>th</sup>, 24<sup>t</sup>h hours.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this study, education type did not affect PCA device use. We believe that whatever method the infrastructure of hospitals is suitable for, should be used for PCA device education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation\",\"volume\":\"51 3\",\"pages\":\"243-248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10339749/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2022.22988\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2022.22988","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:在文献中,关于教育工具和设备使用的数据令人困惑。因此,尚不清楚哪种方法优于另一种方法。本研究的目的是评估教育工具对子宫切除术患者自控镇痛(PCA)使用的影响。方法:96例子宫切除术患者纳入研究。患者被随机分配到一组(口头、宣传册或视频),每组32例患者使用封闭信封法。术后第15分钟、第2、第4、第6、第12、第18、第2、第4、第6、第12、第18、第24小时采用数值评定量表对患者进行疼痛评分。在给定的剂量下,记录按下按钮的次数,恶心和呕吐的出现,以及静态和动态疼痛评分。就诊时,疼痛评分≥4分的患者给予扑热息痛1 g IV。出现恶心呕吐的患者给予昂丹司琼8 mg IV。结果:各组在15 min、2、4、6、12、18、24 h静息、动态疼痛评分、按下按钮次数、给药剂量均无显著差异。结论:在本研究中,教育程度对PCA器械的使用没有影响。我们认为,无论医院的基础设施如何适合,都应该采用PCA设备教育。
Effect of Educational Tools on the use of Patient-Controlled Analgesia Devices.
Objective: In the literature, there are confusing data about educational tools and device use. Therefore, it is not clear which method is superior to the other. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of educational tools on patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) usage in patients undergoing hysterectomy.
Methods: Ninety-six patients undergoing hysterectomy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to a group (verbal, brochure, or video) consisting of 32 patients each using the closed envelope method. After operations, all patients were sent to the ward and evaluated with numerical rating scale score for pain at 15th min., 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th, 18th, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th hours. Given dose, the number of button presses, presence of nausea and vomiting, and static and dynamic pain scores were recorded. During visits, patients who had a pain score ≥4 were administered paracetamol 1 g IV. Ondansetron 8 mg IV was injected into patients who had nausea and vomiting.
Results: No significant differences were determined in resting and dynamic pain scores, number of button presses, and given doses between groups at 15th min., 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th hours.
Conclusion: In this study, education type did not affect PCA device use. We believe that whatever method the infrastructure of hospitals is suitable for, should be used for PCA device education.