Pain is a symptom that should be evaluated along with its comorbidities in order to plan an effective holistic treatment strategy involving specific pharmacological interventions, side effect management, psychological support, control of therapeutic effects over time, and dialogue with the patient and their relatives. In this holistic process of caring for patients with pain, nurses play a central role as they deal with suffering patients directly and continuously. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the types of pain identified by nurses in their daily clinical practice and the associated comorbidities (anamnestic history taking) by geographical region and to evaluate the pharmacological strategies used. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed among 696 registered nurses in Italy. Data were collected using an online questionnaire. Results: There was a significant difference between geographical regions in terms of reports of acute and chronic pain: acute pain was more frequently reported in the South (63.5%), while chronic pain was more frequent in the Central region (32.3%; p=0.0008). Additionally, chronic oncological pain was more frequent in the Northeast (29.6%), while chronic nononcological pain was more frequently reported in the Central region (33.9%; p=0.0001). The underlying pain disorders reported were also different between geographical regions; rheumatic pain (21.8%) and neurological pain (18.6%) were more frequent in the Central region, while musculoskeletal pain was significantly more frequent in the South (43.4%; p=0.004). Anxiety, sleep disorders and somatization were found in acute pain (60.82%, 43.56% and 53.12%), while depression and mood disorders were more frequently detected in chronic pain condition (p<0.001). Conclusion:Our study showed differences among Italian regions in pain assessment. Specific education on pain management nursing is essential for nurses. Promotion of optimal nursing care for people affected by pain is the main focus of pain management nursing. Nowadays, nurses should focus on personalized complex care and research in order to improve the patient's quality of life.
BackgroundIn pre-hospital setting, airway management may be required during hems transportation, when patients deteriorate while en route. Our primary objective was to assess whether in-flight indirect laryngoscopy in frontal right-lateral sitting position (FP) of the operator, is such effective as traditional indirect laryngoscopy methods onshore, considering, also, the association of success rate with influencing flight factors (flying, devices, position, comfort VAS, Lumen VAS). MethodsThis observational prospective study, aimed to estimate the success rate of in-flight FP indirect laryngoscopy intubation. The study conducted on an AW 169 helicopter (©Leonardo Company, Italy) equipped with transversal stretcher, during steady flight. Indirect laryngoscopy devices (GlideScope Ranger and AirTraq) were used on a HAL® manikin (Accurate, Gaumard® Scientific Company,Inc) with cervical collar. ResultsAll of the FP intubations with both devices were successful after two attempts maximum. The mean time for intubation was slightly greater using the Glide Scope Ranger (mean 45.4±32.2”) compared to AirTraq (mean 34.8±26.7”). ConclusionsBoth AirTraq and GlideScope Ranger used in in-flight FP guarantee a comparable level of effectiveness to traditional onshore method with 100% successful rate of intubation, Airtraq seems not been affected by Lumen, indicating that in this specific contest it guarantees a high visualisation regardless the light conditions. On the other hand, the FP results effective using AirTraq in both conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.