Rawal N, Allvin R
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Orebro Medical Centre Hospital, Sweden.
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1998 May;15(3):354-63. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2346.1998.00306.x.
A 17-nation survey was undertaken with the aim of studying the availability of acute pain services (APS) and the use of newer analgesic techniques, such as epidural and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). A questionnaire was mailed to selected anaesthesiologists in 105 European hospitals from 17 countries. Depending on the population, between five and ten representative hospitals from each country were selected by a country coordinator. A total of 101 (96.2%) completed questionnaires were returned. A majority of respondents were dissatisfied with pain management on surgical wards. Pain management was better in post-anaesthesia care units (PACUs); however, 27% of participating hospitals did not have PACUs. There were no organized APS in 64% of hospitals, although anaesthesiologists from chronic pain centres were available for consultation. In the hospitals that had APS, the responsible person for the APS was either: (1) a junior anaesthesiologist (senior anaesthesiologist available for consultation); or (2) a specially trained nurse (supervised by consultant anaesthesiologists). Many anaesthesiologists were unable to introduce techniques such as PCA on wards because of the high equipment costs. Although 40% of hospitals used a visual analogue scale (VAS) or other methods for assessment of pain intensity, routine pain assessment and documenting on a vital sign chart was rarely practised. There was a great variation in routines for opioid prescription and documentation procedures. Nursing regulations regarding injection of drugs into epidural and intrathecal catheters also varied considerably between countries. This survey of 105 hospitals from 17 European countries showed that over 50% of anaesthesiologists were dissatisfied with post-operative pain management on surgical wards. Only 34% of hospitals had an organized APS, and very few hospitals used quality assurance measures such as frequent pain assessment and documentation. There is a need to establish organized APS in most hospitals and also a need for clearer definition of the role of anaesthesiologists in such APS.
开展了一项有17个国家参与的调查,旨在研究急性疼痛服务(APS)的可及性以及新型镇痛技术的使用情况,如硬膜外镇痛和患者自控镇痛(PCA)。向来自17个国家的105家欧洲医院中选定的麻醉医生邮寄了调查问卷。根据人口数量,每个国家的协调员挑选了5至10家有代表性的医院。共收到101份(96.2%)填好的调查问卷。大多数受访者对手术病房的疼痛管理不满意。麻醉后护理单元(PACU)的疼痛管理情况较好;然而,27%的参与调查医院没有PACU。64%的医院没有有组织的APS,尽管慢性疼痛中心的麻醉医生可供咨询。在设有APS的医院中,APS的负责人要么是:(1)初级麻醉医生(资深麻醉医生可供咨询);要么是(2)经过专门培训的护士(由麻醉顾问医生监督)。由于设备成本高昂,许多麻醉医生无法在病房引入PCA等技术。尽管40%的医院使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)或其他方法评估疼痛强度,但很少进行常规疼痛评估并记录在生命体征图表上。阿片类药物处方和记录程序的常规做法差异很大。各国关于将药物注入硬膜外和鞘内导管的护理规定也有很大差异。这项对来自17个欧洲国家的105家医院的调查显示,超过50%的麻醉医生对手术病房的术后疼痛管理不满意。只有34%的医院设有有组织的APS,很少有医院采用频繁疼痛评估和记录等质量保证措施。大多数医院需要建立有组织的APS,同时也需要更明确地界定麻醉医生在这种APS中的作用。