Background:The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of maternal health care providers to pain relief during labor in Zaria, Nigeria.Methods:This was a multicenter, collaborative, cross-sectional pilot study of provider perspectives concerning pain relief during labor. A structured, self-administered, questionnaire was completed by 95 consenting maternal health care providers at three high-volume facilities in Zaria, an ancient northern Nigerian city. Descriptive statistics was performed on the data.Results:Most respondents (94.8%) agreed that pain relief is needed during labor. Only 2.1% of respondents were undecided about the provision of pain relief during labor and 3.2% were of the opinion that pain relief was not necessary during labor. Most respondents (93.7%) had attended a woman in labor in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Of these, 56.8% had counseled a parturient in labor. Most of the counseling (42.1%) took place during labor. Less than half of the respondents (48.4%) had administered pain relief in labor in the preceding 4 weeks and systemic opioids was the most commonly form of pain relief. Among the respondents who did not offer pain relief agents in labor, the majority (54.5%) had no reason for not offering it. Unavailability of methods, inability to afford the cost of pain relief, lack of knowledge and skills, as well as lack of essential equipment to provide the procedure were also given by respondents as reasons for not offering pain relief.Conclusion:Even though maternal health care providers in this environment have a positive attitude to pain relief in labor, most women go through labor without the benefit of analgesia. There exists a gap between provider attitudes to pain relief in labor and practice of the same, with many providers having no genuine reason(s) for not offering pain relief to their clients during labor. Providers need to align their practice to their attitudes, and need to be helped to do this through training as well as enhancing their ability to think critically about their practice.
Background:Pain relief in labor remains a hot topic and these debates get louder by the day as more women become aware of their rights to better quality of care in labor. This study was conceived in a background where the practice of pain relief in labor is evolving and where women are seeking to fulfill their need for pain-free labor.Objective:To investigate the knowledge, utilization and preferences of methods of pain relief in labor by expectant mothers in order to design a labor analgesia program.Materials and Methods:A questionnaire-based descriptive study involving 124 antenatal clients in a teaching hospital over a 1 week period. Descriptive statistics were carried out using SPSS for windows version 17.Results:The mean age of clients was 28.8 years (standard deviation = 5.17) with median parity of two and mean gestational age was 31.5 weeks. Majority of the respondents (47.9%) were of Hausa/Fulani ethnicity and 97.6% had primary school level education. Majority (87.3%) had heard about pain relief methods with the hospital being the source in 79% of cases. The most common method ever heard about was epidural analgesia (69.4%). Only 4% (n = 5) of respondents remembered ever using any form of pain relief agent in labor, of which three received parenteral opioids. In their current pregnancies, 45.2% consented to the use of pain relief in labor; of which, epidural analgesia was preferred by 92.9% (n = 52). Fear of adverse effects on self and infants were cited as reasons for non-consent by some respondents while others had no reason.Conclusion:The study reveals a high awareness of pain relief methods which is not matched by utilization and low knowledge about side-effects, although fear of side-effects is a factor for under-utilization. There is a need to educate adequately as well provide high quality pain relief services in labor in order to dispel with myths, misconceptions and fears associated with the use of methods of pain relief in labor.
ObjectivePostoperative pain is one of the most common complications of surgery. The pattern of management varies between centers. The current study aimed to study the prescription pattern and the common drugs used in the management of postoperative pain in adult surgical patients at Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital (ABUTH; Zaria, Nigeria).MethodsFollowing ethical approval, a prospective observational study of consecutive adult patients who had surgery at the ABUTH Zaria was performed from January to December 2005. The data were entered into a proforma and analyzed using the Minitab statistical package.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-eight patients were included in the study. The age range was 17 to 80 years, with a mean age of 41 years. One hundred and thirty-two (95.7%) of the prescriptions were written solely by the surgeon or surgical resident; passive suggestions were given by the anesthetists for only six patients (4.3%). Intermittent intramuscular injections of opioids/opiates were prescribed for 126 patients (91.3%), while nine patients (6.5%) received intermittent intramuscular injections with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Oral paracetamol was prescribed for six patients (4.3%), while three patients (2.1%) received no postoperative analgesic. Moderate pain was recorded in 48 patients (34.8%), and 90 patients (65.2%) had mild pain 8 hours after their operation before subsequent doses of analgesics were given. More females (81 patients [58.7%]), than males (42 patients [29.7%]) suffered moderate to severe pain. The reported side effects were nausea (reported by 32.6% of patients), dry mouth (21.7%), vomiting (13.0%), and urinary retention (6.5%), with 32.6% of patients experiencing no side effects. The three patients who received no analgesics experienced vomiting as a side effect. Despite the high incidence of pain and other side effects, 108 patients (78.2%) still reported that the methods of postoperative pain management were satisfactory.ConclusionDespite recent advances and the development of more effective techniques for postoperative pain control, a high proportion of patients still experience moderate to severe postoperative pain. Intermittent intramuscular injection of analgesic medication remains the mainstay of postoperative pain management at the ABUTH Zaria. Anesthetists should be more involved in postoperative analgesia prescriptions and should include other forms of multimodal pain management in their regimens. With proper application of current knowledge and training, postoperative pain management can be improved.
Background: Mistakes in the identification and administration of drugs may be fatal. This is especially so in the practice of anaesthesia. This is a report of 2 cases of near fatality due to mistakes in drug administration from look-alike medications. Objective: To highlight the significance of medication errors in our practice and to discuss the best methods of prevention. Method: A report of two cases of errors in the administration of drugs during the conduct of anaesthesia. The subsequent management of the cases is presented, and the findings from the literature are discussed. Result: In case 1, an adult male presented for herniorrhaphy and after induction with propofol 1mg/kg intravenously, Pancuronium bromide injection 4mg was administered intravenously, in the place of suxamethonium chloride injection. In case 2, For induction of anaesthesia, 100mg of thiopentone sodium was administered in place of 25mg of the same drug because Thiopentone 1gm vial was mistaken for Thiopentone 500mg vial in a 2 year old girl. In both cases, the errors were detected early and there were no adverse sequelae. Conclusion: Medication errors are a potential source of iatrogenic harm to patients undergoing anaesthesia. Strict adherence to principles as well as constant vigilance would minimize this problem.
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.