Despite frequent episodes of severe recurrent pain in sickle cell disease (SCD), sensory pain in outpatient adults with SCD lacks sufficient characterization. Furthermore, pivotal barriers may interfere with these patients’ adherence to prescribed analgesic therapies, but have not been studied systematically. We describe sensory pain characteristics, barriers, and analgesic use reported by adults with SCD during routine clinic visits. Patients (N=145, 67% female, 94% African American) completed measures on a pen-tablet computer. Patients reported an average of 3.6±2.3 pain sites; mean current pain intensity (3.3±3.2), least (3.0±2.7) and worst (4.9±3.5) pain intensity in 24 hr on a 0-10 scale; multiple neuropathic (4.5±3.4, 8.3% selected none) and nociceptive (6.8±4.0) pain descriptors; and continuous pain pattern (59%). Their mean pain barriers score was 2.2±0.9, and 33% were dissatisfied with their pain levels. Only 14% reported taking at least one adjuvant drug, 82% were taking nonopioids, 85% step 2 opioids, and 65% step 3 opioids. Patients reported using, on average, 4.9±2.7 analgesics. Their pain barriers scores are similar to or greater than people with cancer. Importantly, their pain may be both nociceptive and neuropathic, contrary to common expectations that SCD pain is only nociceptive. Few patients, however, took drugs effective for neuropathic pain.

BackgroundDignity Therapy (DT), an intervention for people facing serious illness, focuses on dignity conservation tasks such as settling relationships, sharing words of love, and preparing a legacy document for loved ones. Research on DT began more than a decade ago and has been conducted in 7 countries, but a systematic review of DT research has not been published.MethodsUsing a PubMed search with key terms of ‘dignity therapy’, ‘dignity psychotherapy’, ‘Chochinov’, and ‘dignity care’, we found 29 articles on DT and retained 25 after full-text review.ResultsOf these, 17 articles representing 12 quantitative studies establish that patients who receive DT report high satisfaction and benefits for themselves and their families, including increased sense of meaning and purpose. The effects of DT on physical or emotional symptoms, however, were inconsistent.ConclusionsConclusions point to three areas for future research on DT, to determine: (1) whether the DT intervention exerts an impact at a spiritual level and/or as a life completion task; (2) how DT should be implemented in real world settings; and (3) if DT has an effect on the illness experience within the context of not only the patient, but also the family and community. Building on this body of DT research, investigators will need to continue to be sensitive as they involve participants in DT studies and innovations to facilitate the generation and delivery of legacy documents to participants near the end of life.

Objective To determine the state of the science for the five standardized nursing terminology sets in terms of level of evidence and study focus. Design Systematic Review. Data sources Keyword search of PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 1960s to March 19, 2012 revealed 1,257 publications. Review Methods From abstract review we removed duplicate articles, those not in English or with no identifiable standardized nursing terminology, and those with a low-level of evidence. From full text review of the remaining 312 articles, eight trained raters used a coding system to record standardized nursing terminology names, publication year, country, and study focus. Inter-rater reliability confirmed the level of evidence. We analyzed coded results. Results On average there were 4 studies per year between 1985 and 1995. The yearly number increased to 14 for the decade between 1996–2005, 21 between 2006–2010, and 25 in 2011. Investigators conducted the research in 27 countries. By evidence level for the 312 studies 72.4% were descriptive, 18.9% were observational, and 8.7% were intervention studies. Of the 312 reports, 72.1% focused on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, Nursing Outcome Classification, or some combination of those three standardized nursing terminologies; 9.6% on Omaha System; 7.1% on International Classification for Nursing Practice; 1.6% on Clinical Care Classification/Home Health Care Classification; 1.6% on Perioperative Nursing Data Set; and 8.0% on two or more standardized nursing terminology sets. There were studies in all 10 foci categories including those focused on concept analysis/classification infrastructure (n = 43), the identification of the standardized nursing terminology concepts applicable to a health setting from registered nurses’ documentation (n = 54), mapping one terminology to another (n = 58), implementation of standardized nursing terminologies into electronic health records (n = 12), and secondary use of electronic health record data (n = 19). Conclusions Findings reveal that the number of standardized nursing terminology publications increased primarily since 2000 with most focusing on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification. The majority of the studies were descriptive, qualitative, or correlational designs that provide a strong base for understanding the validity and reliability of the concepts underlying the standardized nursing terminologies. There is evidence supporting the successful integration and use in electronic health records for two standardized nursing terminology sets: (1) the North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification set; and (2) the Omaha System set. Researchers, however, should continue to strengthen standardized nursing terminology study designs to promote continuous improvement of the standardized nursing terminologies and use in clin...

No abstract

No abstract