• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

急诊室护士与患者疼痛评分的一致性:一项横断面观察性研究。

Congruency of nurse-patient pain scoring in the emergency department: a cross-sectional observational study.

机构信息

Faculty of Nursing, The University of Jordan-Aqaba Campus, Aqaba, Jordan.

Royal Medical Services, Prince Zaid Hospital, Tafilah, Jordan.

出版信息

Pain Manag. 2022 Jul;12(5):635-643. doi: 10.2217/pmt-2021-0079. Epub 2022 Feb 9.

DOI:10.2217/pmt-2021-0079
PMID:35135300
Abstract

To examine the congruency between patient self-reporting and nurse assessment of pain in the emergency department (ED) through the use of the numerical rating scale (NRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Patient self-reporting of pain and nurse assessments were concurrently conducted using the NRS and VAS. Self-reported pain assessment was collected from 200 ED patients in parallel with their corresponding nurse-reported pain scores, conducted by 67 ED nurses. Although nurse-patient pain scoring was associated with a high congruency using both NRS and VAS (88.2 and 91.5%, respectively), nurses still underestimated patients' pain intensity using both tools (t = 2.37 and 2.60; p = 0.007 and 0.010 and CI: 0.17-1.1 and 0.06-0.46, respectively). Some nurse-patient characteristics showed relationships with a discrepancy in pain scoring.

摘要

通过使用数字评分量表(NRS)和视觉模拟量表(VAS),检查急诊科(ED)中患者自我报告和护士评估疼痛之间的一致性。同时使用 NRS 和 VAS 对患者的疼痛进行自我报告和护士评估。从 200 名 ED 患者中收集自我报告的疼痛评估结果,同时收集由 67 名 ED 护士报告的相应疼痛评分。尽管护士-患者疼痛评分在使用 NRS 和 VAS 时都具有高度一致性(分别为 88.2%和 91.5%),但护士仍使用这两种工具低估了患者的疼痛强度(t = 2.37 和 2.60;p = 0.007 和 0.010,CI:0.17-1.1 和 0.06-0.46,分别)。一些护士-患者特征与疼痛评分差异有关。

相似文献

1
Congruency of nurse-patient pain scoring in the emergency department: a cross-sectional observational study.急诊室护士与患者疼痛评分的一致性:一项横断面观察性研究。
Pain Manag. 2022 Jul;12(5):635-643. doi: 10.2217/pmt-2021-0079. Epub 2022 Feb 9.
2
Pain assessment in the Emergency Department. Correlation between pain rated by the patient and by the nurse. An observational study.急诊科的疼痛评估。患者与护士所评定疼痛之间的相关性。一项观察性研究。
Acta Biomed. 2018 Feb 27;89(4-S):64-70. doi: 10.23750/abm.v89i4-S.7055.
3
The patient vs. caregiver perception of acute pain in the emergency department.患者与护理人员对急诊科急性疼痛的认知
J Emerg Med. 2000 Jan;18(1):7-12. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(99)00153-5.
4
The end of the line? The Visual Analogue Scale and Verbal Numerical Rating Scale as pain assessment tools in the emergency department.尽头?视觉模拟评分法和口头数字评分法作为急诊科的疼痛评估工具。
Emerg Med J. 2010 May;27(5):372-5. doi: 10.1136/emj.2007.048611.
5
Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department.用于急诊科的急性疼痛口头数字评定量表的验证
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Apr;10(4):390-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb01355.x.
6
Acute Pain Assessment Inadequacy in the Emergency Department: Patients' Perspective.急诊科急性疼痛评估不足:患者视角
J Patient Exp. 2022 Jan 4;9:23743735211049677. doi: 10.1177/23743735211049677. eCollection 2022.
7
Comparative study of methods of measuring acute pain intensity in an ED.急诊科急性疼痛强度测量方法的比较研究
Am J Emerg Med. 1998 Mar;16(2):132-6. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90029-8.
8
Ability of pain scoring scales to differentiate between patients desiring analgesia and those who do not in the emergency department.疼痛评分量表区分急诊科中需要镇痛和不需要镇痛患者的能力。
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Jul;57:107-113. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.04.046. Epub 2022 May 5.
9
Accuracy of emergency nurses in assessment of patients' pain.急诊护士评估患者疼痛的准确性。
Pain Manag Nurs. 2003 Dec;4(4):171-5. doi: 10.1016/s1524-9042(03)00033-x.
10
Pain rating in the ED-a comparison between 2 scales in a Swedish hospital.急诊科的疼痛评分——瑞典一家医院两种量表的比较。
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;33(3):419-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.12.069. Epub 2015 Jan 6.