Dataset Information

Patient perspectives of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and methods for improving pain control and patient satisfaction.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to (1) identify patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) attributes that negatively impact patient satisfaction and ability to control pain while using PCA and (2) obtain data on patient perceptions of new PCA design features. METHODS:We conducted a prospective survey study of postoperative pain control among patients using a PCA device. The survey was designed to evaluate patient satisfaction with pain control, understanding of PCA, difficulties using PCA, lockout-period management, and evaluation of new PCA design features. RESULTS:A total of 350 eligible patients completed the survey (91%). Patients who had difficulties using PCA were less satisfied (P < 0.001) and were more likely to feel unable to control their pain (P < 0.001). Satisfaction and self-reported ability to control pain were not affected by patient education about the PCA. Forty-nine percent of patients reported not knowing if they would receive medicine when they pushed the PCA button, and of these, 22% believed that this uncertainty made their pain worse. The majority of patients preferred the proposed PCA design features for easier use, including a light on the button, making it easier to find (57%), and a PCA button that vibrates (55%) or lights up (70%), alerting the patient that the PCA pump is able to deliver more medicine. CONCLUSIONS:A majority of patients, irrespective of their satisfaction with PCA, preferred a new PCA design. Certain attributes of current PCA technology may negatively impact patient experience, and modifications could potentially address these concerns and improve patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Patak LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3717314 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient perspectives of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and methods for improving pain control and patient satisfaction.

Patak Lance S LS Tait Alan R AR Mirafzali Leela L Morris Michelle M Dasgupta Sunavo S Brummett Chad M CM

Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 20130701 4

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>This study aimed to (1) identify patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) attributes that negatively impact patient satisfaction and ability to control pain while using PCA and (2) obtain data on patient perceptions of new PCA design features.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a prospective survey study of postoperative pain control among patients using a PCA device. The survey was designed to evaluate patient satisfaction with pain control, understanding of PCA, difficulti ...[more]

PMID: 23788069

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief. SEARCH METHODS:We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS:Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Project description:Growth of the foreign-born population in the U.S. has led to increasing numbers of limited-English-proficient (LEP) patients. Innovative medical interpreting strategies, including remote simultaneous medical interpreting (RSMI), have arisen to address the language barrier. This study evaluates the impact of interpreting method on patient satisfaction.1,276 English-, Spanish-, Mandarin-, and Cantonese-speaking patients attending the primary care clinic and emergency department of a large New York City municipal hospital were screened for enrollment in a randomized controlled trial. Language-discordant patients were randomized to RSMI or usual and customary (U&C) interpreting. Patients with language-concordant providers received usual care. Demographic and patient satisfaction questionnaires were administered to all participants.541 patients were language-concordant with their providers and not randomized; 371 were randomized to RSMI, 167 of whom were exposed to RSMI; and 364 were randomized to U&C, 198 of whom were exposed to U&C. Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely than those with U&C to think doctors treated them with respect (RSMI 71%, U&C 64%, p < 0.05), but they did not differ in other measures of physician communication/care. In a linear regression analysis, exposure to RSMI was significantly associated with an increase in overall satisfaction with physician communication/care (beta 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.18, scale 0-1.0). Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely to think the interpreting method protected their privacy (RSMI 51%, U&C 38%, p < 0.05). Patients randomized to either arm of interpretation reported less comprehension and satisfaction than patients in language-concordant encounters.While not a substitute for language-concordant providers, RSMI can improve patient satisfaction and privacy among LEP patients. Implementing RSMI should be considered an important component of a multipronged approach to addressing language barriers in health care.

Project description:Postoperative pain after major open gynecologic surgeries requires appropriate pain management.This study aimed at comparing perioperative patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) after gynecologic oncology surgeries.In this clinical trial study, 90 patients with American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II scheduled for gynecologic oncologic surgeries were randomly allocated to two groups (45 patients each group) to receive: patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl (PCEA group), or patient controlled intravenous analgesia (IV PCA group) with fentanyl, pethidine and ondansetron. Postoperative pain was assessed over 48 hours using the visual analog scale (VAS). The frequency of rescue analgesia was recorded. Occurrence of any concomitant events such as nausea, vomiting, ileus, purities, sedation and respiratory complications were recorded postoperatively.There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data including; age, weight, ASA physical status, duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, and the amount of blood transfusion (P > 0.05), between the two studied groups. Severity of postoperative pain was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, after first patient mobilization, pain was significantly lower in the epidural group than the IV group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of complications such as nausea, vomiting, purities or ileus (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of sedation was significantly higher in the IV group (P < 0.001). Respiratory depression was higher in the IV group than the epidural group; this difference, however, was not significant (P = 0.11). In the epidural group, only 10 patients (22.2%) had mild and transient lower extremities parenthesis.Both intravenous and epidural analgesic techniques with combination of analgesics provide proper postoperative pain control after major gynecologic cancer surgeries without any significant complications. Regarding lower sedative and respiratory depressant effects of epidural analgesia, it seems that this method is a safer technique for postoperative pain relief in these patients.

Project description:BackgroundPost-operative pain is unpleasant for patients and may worsen surgical recovery. Peri-operative multimodal analgesia has been used for many years; however, its efficacy still needs improvement. In the present study, a thorough peri-operative pain counseling and stratified management program based on risk assessment was implemented, with the goal of improving post-operative analgesia and patient satisfaction.MethodsThis prospective, controlled, pilot study included 361 patients who underwent elective surgery. Of these 361 patients, 187 received peri-operative pain risk assessment and stratified analgesia and counseling (stratified analgesia group), while 174 received conventional multimodal analgesia (conventional group). The two groups were compared regarding the post-operative pain intensity, rescue analgesia administration, post-operative quality of recovery as assessed via the quality of recovery 40 questionnaire, total dosage of peri-operative opioids, analgesic satisfaction, and analgesic costs.ResultsCompared with the conventional group, the stratified analgesia group reported decreased pain intensity during motion at 24 h post-operatively and required lower dosages of rescue analgesia (P = 0.03). The total quality of recovery 40 questionnaire score and the scores for physical wellbeing and pain were significantly better in the stratified analgesia group than the conventional group (P = 0.04); the stratified analgesia group also reported better scores for analgesic satisfaction (P = 0.03) and received lower dosages of opioids (P = 0.03). Analgesic costs were lower in the stratified analgesia group than the conventional group; the cost-effective ratio was 109 in the conventional group and 62 in the stratified analgesia group.ConclusionsThe analgesic efficacy was improved by the implementation of stratified analgesia based on surgical pain risk assessment and counseling. This stratified analgesia protocol increased the patients' analgesic satisfaction and improved the quality of recovery without increasing healthcare costs. The present findings may help improve the efficacy of peri-operative multimodal analgesia in clinical practice.Clinical trial registryNCT02728973; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02728973?term=NCT02728973&draw=2&rank=1.

Project description:IntroductionPain is the commonest reason that patients present to an emergency department (ED), but it is often not treated effectively. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is used in other hospital settings but there is little evidence to support its use in emergency patients. We describe two randomised trials aiming to compare PCA to nurse titrated analgesia (routine care) in adult patients who present to the ED requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain and are subsequently admitted to hospital.Methods and analysisTwo prospective multi-centre open-label randomised trials of PCA versus routine care in emergency department patients who require intravenous opioid analgesia followed by admission to hospital; one trial involving patients with traumatic musculoskeletal injuries and the second involving patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. In each trial, 200 participants will be randomised to receive either routine care or PCA, and followed for the first 12 h of their hospital stay. The primary outcome measure is hourly pain score recorded by the participant using a visual analogue scale (VAS) over the 12 h study period, with the primary statistical analyses based on the area under the curve of these pain scores. Secondary outcomes include total opioid use, side effects, time spent asleep, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay and incremental cost effectiveness ratio.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the South Central-Southampton A Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 11/SC/0151). Data collection will be completed by August 2013, with statistical analyses starting after all final data queries are resolved. Dissemination plans include presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings held by relevant Colleges and societies. Publications should be ready for submission during 2014. A lay summary of the results will be available to study participants on request, and disseminated via a publically accessible website.Registration detailsThe study is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT Number: 2011-000194-31) and is on the ISCRTN register (ISRCTN25343280).

Dataset Information

Patient perspectives of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and methods for improving pain control and patient satisfaction.

Publications

Patient perspectives of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and methods for improving pain control and patient satisfaction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets