Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27655311›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016

Standardising analgesic administration for nurses: a prospective intervention study.

Susanne Schiek, Katharina Moritz, Stefanie J Seichter, Mohamed Ghanem, Georg von Salis-Soglio, Roberto Frontini, Thilo Bertsche

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reviewing opioid use, monitoring, and legislature: Nursing perspectives.International journal of nursing sciences · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susanne SchiekDrug Safety Center, University Hospital of Leipzig and Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Katharina MoritzDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Leipzig University, Eilenburger Straße 15a, 04317, Leipzig, Germany.
Stefanie J SeichterDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Leipzig University, Eilenburger Straße 15a, 04317, Leipzig, Germany.
Mohamed GhanemDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Georg von Salis-SoglioDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Roberto FrontiniDrug Safety Center, University Hospital of Leipzig and Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Thilo BertscheDrug Safety Center, University Hospital of Leipzig and Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. klinische.pharmazie@uni-leipzig.de.
University Hospital Leipzig · DELeipzig University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Uncontrolled pain reduces quality of life, delays recovery from surgery and can potentially contribute to the development of chronic pain. Strategies to improve pain management are desirable in view of these detrimental outcomes, yet frequently they are predominately medically based despite nurses playing key roles in pain assessment and analgesic administration. Objective To develop an algorithm-based guidance addressing nurses' pain assessment and analgesic administration and investigating its impact on quality of pain management. Setting Two orthopaedic units in a university hospital. Method An interdisciplinary expert panel consisting of physicians, nurses and clinical pharmacists developed an algorithm-based guidance in analgesic administration for nurses. The guidance was based on current guidelines addressing the appropriate use of analgesics. In a prospective intervention study, clinical pharmacists acted as independent monitors who assessed nurses' pain assessment and analgesic administration before (control period: usual care without any further support) and after implementation of the algorithm-based guidance (intervention period). We evaluated patient-nurse contacts for guideline adherence. We predefined guideline adherence (main outcome) as fulfilling all three of the following criteria: (A) nurses' pain intensity assessment, (B) their assessment of the patients' need for analgesics, and (C) analgesic administration depending on patients' individual pain intensity (including choice of prescribed analgesics). Main outcome measure Adherence to pain management guidelines. Results We analysed 706 patient-nurse contacts with 162 patients in the control and 748 contacts with 168 patients in the intervention period. Without support, guidelines were followed in 6 % of the patient contacts. We achieved an increase to 54 % (p < 0.001) after guidance implementation (main outcome). Guideline adherence decreased with rising pain intensity (slope coefficient -0.763, p < 0.001). Conclusion Especially in patients suffering from severe pain, current guidelines were not strictly followed by nurses when administering analgesics. Guideline adherence improved eightfold by implementing an algorithm-based guidance.

Indexed as

Nurse's RoleAdultAnalgesicsFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansMalePain ManagementPostoperative PainProspective StudiesAnalgesicsAlgorithmsAnalgesicsClinical pharmacistsDecision makingGermanyGuideline adherenceHospitalNursing StaffPain management

Identifiers

PMID27655311
OpenAlexW2521131772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.