Search

Following abdominal surgery, ischaemia and neuropeptide release cause pain at the trauma site, and there is a high incidence of moderate-to-severe pain. Inadequate pain management leads to complications, delayed recovery and prolonged hospitalisation, and thus, effective management is essential. This article describes an implementation of acute pain management after abdominal surgery. A multidimensional assessment tool collected data on demographics, medical history and surgical situation, as well as interventions used, their administration route and their side effects. Pain level was recorded on a scale of 0–10, both at rest and during physical activity, by postoperative day; patient participation and satisfaction were also recorded. Nine patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. Pharmacological analgesic interventions included opioids (morphine, fentanyl and tramadol) and paracetamol. Administration was either intravenous, epidural or via patient-controlled analgesia. These were combined with non-pharmacological interventions, specifically cold gel packs, massage therapy and music therapy. All patients achieved the adequate management goals of pain at rest below 3/10 and during activity below 4/10, and all participated in pain decision-making, were satisfied with pain treatment, and reported the usefulness of preoperative information. Pain management following abdominal surgery is vital, and the use of a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological techniques was effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following abdominal surgery, ischaemia and neuropeptide release cause pain at the trauma site, and there is a high incidence of moderate-to-severe pain. Inadequate pain management leads to complications, delayed recovery and prolonged hospitalisation, and thus, effective management is essential. This study describes an implementation of acute pain management after abdominal surgery. Methods: A multidimensional assessment tool collected data on demographics, medical history and surgical situation, as well as interventions used, their administration route and their side effects. Pain level was recorded on a scale of 0–10, both at rest and during physical activity, by postoperative day. Patient participation and satisfaction were also recorded. Results: Nine patients met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacological analgesic interventions included opioids (morphine, fentanyl and tramadol) and paracetamol. Administration was either intravenous, epidural or via patient-controlled analgesia. These were combined with non-pharmacological interventions, specifically cold gel packs, massage therapy and music therapy. All patients achieved the adequate management goals of pain at rest below 3/10 and during activity below 4/10, and all participated in pain decision-making, were satisfied with pain treatment, and reported the usefulness of preoperative information. Conclusions: Pain management following abdominal surgery is vital, and the use of a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological techniques was effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To examine the level of perception of the quality of discharge teaching and its associations with the readiness for hospital discharge among surgical patients in acute care hospitals. Background: Discharge teaching is a primary strategy to facilitate patients' readiness for hospital discharge. The extent to which the surgical ward was perceived as providing patient‐focused education when discharged has never been explored. Its impact on a patient's readiness is also unknown in the Indonesian context. Design: A correlational descriptive study was used to collect data from four hospitals in Indonesia. Methods: Ninety‐six surgical patients who were in the discharge process enrolled in this study. The demographic form, the quality of discharge teaching scale (QDTS) and the readiness for hospital discharge scale (RHDS) were utilised for data collection. Data were collected from January–February 2018. Descriptive statistics and Spearman rank‐order correlation were applied for data analysis. Results: The discharge teaching quality was perceived as being at a low level. The readiness for hospital discharge was reported to be at a moderate level. Overall, the discharge teaching quality was not statistically associated with the patients' readiness. However, positive correlations were found in QDTS and RHDS subscales such as content received and delivery, knowledge, coping ability and expected support. Patient's readiness for hospital discharge was also greater for those who had a caregiver, a short hospital stay, a health insurance and occupation. Conclusions: Surgical patients perceived a low quality of discharge teaching, which may decrease their readiness for hospital discharge. Relevance to clinical practice: This study provides baseline information reflecting the patient learning needs in discharge preparation to guide surgical nurses for improving the discharge teaching quality and enhancing the patients' readiness for hospital discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]