Marco Catherine A, Marco Alan P, Plewa Michael C, Buderer Nancy, Bowles Jameson, Lee Jennifer
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center, Toledo, OH 43608-2691, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Aug;13(8):853-9. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.04.020.
Emergency department (ED) patients are frequently asked to provide a self-report of the level of pain experienced using a verbal numeric rating scale.
To determine the effects of patient education regarding the verbal numeric rating scale on self-reports of pain among ED patients.
In this prospective, interventional study, 310 eligible ED patients with pain, aged 18 years and older, were randomized to view either a novel educational video (n = 155) or a novel print brochure (n = 155) as an educational intervention, both developed to deliver educational information about the verbal numeric pain scale and its use. Participants initially rated their pain on a scale from 0 to 10 and then were administered the educational intervention. Following the educational intervention, participants completed a survey that included demographic information, postinterventional pain score, prior pain experience, and subjective rating of the helpfulness of the educational intervention. Fifty-five consecutive participants were enrolled as controls and received no educational intervention but gave a self-reported triage pain score and a second pain score at an equivalent time interval. Clinical significance was defined as a decrease in pain of 2 or more points following the education.
Following the educational interventions, there were statistically significant, although not clinically significant, decreases in mean pain scores within each intervention group (video: mean change, 1 point [95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7 to 1.2]; printed brochure: mean change, 0.6 points [95% CI = 0.4 to 0.8]). For participants in the control group (no intervention), there was no significant change (mean change, 0.2 points [95% CI = -0.2 to 0.5]). A clinically significant decrease in pain was seen in 28% of the video group, 23% of the brochure group, and 5% of controls. Most patients had no change (71% of the video group, 73% of the brochure group, and 89% of controls). Participants rated the helpfulness of the video educational intervention as 7.1 (95% CI = 6.7 to 7.5) and the print educational intervention as 6.7 (95% CI = 6.2 to 7.1) on a scale from 0 (least effective) to 10 (most helpful).
Among ED participants with pain, both educational interventions (video and printed brochure) resulted in statistically and clinically significant decreased self-reported pain scores by 2 or more points in 26% of participants compared with 5% of controls. The educational interventions were rated as helpful by participants, with no appreciable difference between the two intervention groups.
急诊科(ED)患者经常被要求使用言语数字评定量表对所经历的疼痛程度进行自我报告。
确定针对言语数字评定量表的患者教育对急诊科患者疼痛自我报告的影响。
在这项前瞻性干预研究中,310名符合条件的18岁及以上有疼痛的急诊科患者被随机分为观看一部新颖的教育视频(n = 155)或一份新颖的印刷手册(n = 155)作为教育干预措施,两者均旨在提供有关言语数字疼痛量表及其使用的教育信息。参与者最初在0至10的量表上对自己的疼痛进行评分,然后接受教育干预。在教育干预之后,参与者完成一项调查,其中包括人口统计学信息、干预后的疼痛评分、既往疼痛经历以及对教育干预有用性的主观评分。连续纳入55名参与者作为对照组,他们未接受教育干预,但在相同的时间间隔内给出了自我报告的分诊疼痛评分和第二个疼痛评分。临床意义被定义为教育后疼痛减轻2分或更多。
在教育干预之后,每个干预组内的平均疼痛评分均有统计学上的显著降低,尽管在临床上无显著意义(视频组:平均变化1分[95%置信区间[CI]=0.7至1.2];印刷手册组:平均变化0.6分[95%CI = 0.4至0.8])。对于对照组(无干预)的参与者,没有显著变化(平均变化0.2分[95%CI = -0.2至0.5])。视频组中有28%、手册组中有23%以及对照组中有5%的患者疼痛出现了临床上显著降低。大多数患者没有变化(视频组为71%、手册组为73%、对照组为89%)。参与者对视频教育干预有用性的评分在0(最无效)至10(最有帮助)的量表上为7.1(95%CI = 6.7至7.5),对印刷教育干预的评分为6.7(95%CI = 6.2至7.1)。
在有疼痛的急诊科参与者中,与5%的对照组相比,两种教育干预措施(视频和印刷手册)均使26%的参与者自我报告的疼痛评分在统计学和临床上显著降低了2分或更多。参与者认为教育干预是有帮助的,两个干预组之间没有明显差异。