No abstract

BACKGROUND: Pain in critically ill patients is undertreated. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of pain and acute pain management practices in a large metropolitan area to provide direction for improvements in pain relief. METHODS: In a descriptive, correlational study, data were collected from 213 patients in 13 hospitals. Interviews with patients, chart reviews, and interviews with nurse leaders were used to examine institutional and individual approaches to pain management. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of patients did not recall an explanation of a pain management plan, and 64% were often in moderate to severe pain while in the intensive care unit. High pain intensity correlated with wait for an analgesic (P < .001), expectations of less pain (P < .001), and longer stay in the intensive care unit (P < .001). Low satisfaction correlated with expectations of less pain (P < .001), often being in moderate to severe pain (P < .001), and long wait for an analgesic (P < .001). In the first 24 hours postoperatively, only 54% of patients had a numerical pain rating documented; 91% had a pain description. The amount of opioid given on postoperative day 1 was influenced by pain intensity (P < .001), the patient's age (P = .03), type of surgery (P = .002), and route of analgesic (P < .001). Only 33% of patients had nonpharmacological pain interventions documented. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate to severe pain, patients are generally satisfied with their pain relief. Measuring patients' satisfaction alone is not a reliable outcome for determining the effectiveness of pain management. Realistic expectations of patients about their pain may enhance coping, increase satisfaction, and decrease pain intensity after surgery.

intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Results Four hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized to INT ( n = 224) or to usual care ( n = 223). After 36 months ESC-SCORE development favouring INT was observed (INT: 8.70% to 10.03% vs. usual care: 8.49% to 12.09%; p = 0.005; net difference: 18.50%). Moreover, a significant reduction in the composite cardiovascular events was observed: (INT: n = 11 vs. usual care: n = 27). Hazard ratio of intervention versus control was 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.03; p = 0.062) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.18-0.90; p = 0.026) in the per-protocol analysis, respectively. No intervention-related adverse events or side-effects were observed. Conclusions Our results demonstrate the efficiency of identifying cardiovascular high-risk subjects by the ESC-SCORE in order to enrol them to a risk adjusted primary prevention programme. This strategy resulted in a significant improvement of ESC-SCORE, as well as a reduction in predefined cardiovascular endpoints in the INT within 36 months. (ISRCTN 23536103.).

No abstract

No abstract