Visual Analog Pain Scores Reported to a Nurse and a Physician in a Postoperative Setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative foot and ankle patient-reported visual analog pain scores (VAS) to nursing staff and the treating surgeon during a single encounter. Prior literature established preoperative patients reported higher pain scores to a surgeon as compared to nursing staff. We hypothesized that there will be no differences in postoperative patients' pain scores when reporting to nursing staff vs a surgeon.Methods
This study was a retrospective cohort of 201 consecutive postoperative foot and ankle patients with 3 follow-up encounters treated by a single surgeon. The patients were asked to rate their pain intensity using the VAS with 0 "no pain" and 10 "worst pain" at 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively by a nurse and surgeon.Results
At all time intervals, the mean pain score was significantly higher when reported to the surgeon, although these were not clinically relevant. The mean scores at 2 weeks were 2.8 reported to the surgeon and 2.5 reported to the nurse (P < .001). The mean scores at 6 weeks were 2.0 reported to the surgeon and 1.8 reported to the nurse (P = .002). The mean scores at 12 weeks were 2.3 reported to the surgeon and 2.0 reported to the nurse (P = .005).Conclusion
This study found that postoperative foot and ankle patients did not overemphasize their VAS pain scores to the physician vs nursing staff. These findings contrast with our 2 previous studies that found preoperative and nonoperative patients reported clinically significant higher scores to the surgeon.Level of evidence
Level III, comparative study.
SUBMITTER: McBride TJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8697173 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo survey the clinical satisfaction of patients who have had an endoscopic piriformis release with a sciatic nerve neurolysis.MethodsPatients with piriformis syndrome (PS) who were treated with an endoscopic piriformis release combined with a sciatic neurolysis between 2013 and 2018 were identified. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Patients were contacted by telephone in 201,9 whereby the rate of satisfaction and pain were evaluated with the Benson surgery scale and the visual analog scale (VAS).ResultsThe average duration of symptoms at first presentation was 34 months (range 16-54 months). Thirty-seven cases (82,2%) had an EMG that showed sciatic compression around the piriformis muscle. The average preoperative VAS pain score was 7.4 (± 0.8). The mean VAS score at the time of the survey was 1.9 (± 2.4). The difference in median preoperative and postoperative VAS was 6. Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, we found there was a significant improvement of VAS score (with P < .001). Using the Benson operative scale, we found that outcomes at the time of the survey were excellent in 23 patients (24 cases, 53.4%), good in 10 (22.2%), fair in 3 (6.7%), and poor in 8 (17.7%). Three patients with a poor result had a wrong diagnosis of PS and ended up needing treatment for a different diagnosis. In total, 33 patients answered affirmative on the question if they would undergo the procedure again. Apart from 3 local wound infections, no major complications were observed.ConclusionsOnce a diagnosis is made, the endoscopic release of the piriformis tendon results in significant improvement in Pain VAS scores for patients with refractory symptoms despite conservative treatment.Level of evidenceLevel IV, therapeutic case series.
| S-EPMC9042772 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background In clinical audits in which preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores were not recorded, it would be useful if such scores could be re-created at the time of review. Patients and Methods We recorded VAS score for pain during the past week before surgery for 245 consecutive hand-surgery patients scheduled for planned surgery during a 6-month period. A total of 30 patients who refused to participate or were unable to respond were excluded. The remaining 215 patients were contacted after 21 months and asked to furnish a new VAS score of the pain they remembered to have had during the last week before surgery. Responses were analyzed with a Bland-Altman plot. Results One hundred and thirty-one (61%) of the patients responded. The mean remembered preoperative score was higher than the mean real preoperative score in all diagnosis groups. The mean difference was 10 mm (standard deviation: 22 mm; standard error of the mean: 2 mm). The lower and upper limits of 95% agreement for individual scores were -33 and 53 mm, whereas the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval of the mean were 6 and 14 mm. Conclusion It may be possible to predict the mean real preoperative VAS score in groups of patients with accuracy using the remembered preoperative score. In individual patients, remembered preoperative VAS scores are far too inaccurate to be of value. However, real preoperative scores should be used whenever possible.
| S-EPMC7141901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAlthough patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be useful for assessing quality of life, they can be complex and cognitively burdensome. In this study, we prospectively evaluated a simple patient-reported voice assessment measure on a visual analog scale (VAS voice) and compared it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10).Study designProspective survey.MethodsAn abbreviated voice measure was designed by a team of otolaryngologists, speech pathologists, and patients that consisted of four VAS questions related to (a) a global question of voice disturbance, (b) physical function of voice, (c) functional issues, and (d) emotional handicap. All English-speaking patients presenting to an academic laryngology clinic for a voice complaint were included. Internal consistency and validity were assessed with comparison to the VHI-10.ResultsA total of 209 patients were enrolled. Ninety-two percent of patients reported understanding the survey. The four-item VAS survey was highly correlated with VHI-10 score (Pearson correlation .81, P < .0001), and the Cronbach's alpha between all four VAS questions was .94. Age, gender, and diagnosis were not associated with either the global VAS or VHI-10 tool.ConclusionReducing the complexity of instruments assessing voice-related quality of life is feasible, and the VAS voice correlated with existing measures. Simplified assessments may offer advantages compared to more cumbersome PROMs.Level of evidence2c.
| S-EPMC7042645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough the pain visual analog scale (VAS-pain) is a ubiquitous patient-reported outcome instrument, it remains unclear how to interpret changes or differences in scores. Therefore, our purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.MethodsAdult postoperative patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons at a single tertiary academic medical center were identified. Inclusion required VAS-pain scores at baseline (up to 3 months before surgery) and follow-up (up to 4 months after surgery), in addition to a response to a pain-specific anchor question at follow-up. The MCID estimates were calculated with (1) the 1/2 standard deviation method; and (2) an anchor-based approach. The SCB estimates were calculated with (1) an anchor-based approach; and (2) a receiver operator curve method that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a "much improved" pain status.ResultsThere were 667 and 148 total patients included in the MCID and SCB analyses, respectively. The 1/2 standard deviation MCID estimate was 1.6, and the anchor-based estimate was 1.9. The anchor-based SCB estimate was 2.2. The receiver operator curve analysis yielded an SCB estimate of 2.6, with an area under the curve of 0.72, consistent with acceptable discrimination.ConclusionsWe propose MCID values in the range of 1.6 to 1.9 and SCB values in the range of 2.2 to 2.6 for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.Clinical relevanceThese MCID and SCB estimates may be useful for powering clinical studies and when interpreting VAS-pain score changes or differences reported in the hand surgery literature. These values are to be applied at a population level, and should not be applied to assess the improvement, or lack thereof, for individual patients.
| S-EPMC9271584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited data guide radiotherapy choices for patients with brain metastases. This survey aimed to identify patient, physician, and practice setting variables associated with reported preferences for different treatment techniques.Method277 members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (6% of surveyed physicians) completed a survey regarding treatment preferences for 21 hypothetical patients with brain metastases. Treatment choices included combinations of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and surgery. Vignettes varied histology, extracranial disease status, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), presence of neurologic deficits, lesion size and number. Multivariate generalized estimating equation regression models were used to estimate odds ratios.ResultsFor a hypothetical patient with 3 lesions or 8 lesions, 21% and 91% of physicians, respectively, chose WBRT alone, compared with 1% selecting WBRT alone for a patient with 1 lesion. 51% chose WBRT alone for a patient with active extracranial disease or KPS=50%. 40% chose SRS alone for an 80 year-old patient with 1 lesion, compared to 29% for a 55 year-old patient. Multivariate modeling detailed factors associated with SRS use, including availability of SRS within one's practice (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.46-3.37).ConclusionsPoor prognostic factors, such as advanced age, poor performance status, or active extracranial disease, correspond with an increase in physicians' reported preference for using WBRT. When controlling for clinical factors, equipment access was independently associated with choice of SRS. The large variability in preferences suggests that more information about the relative harms and benefits of these options is needed to guide decision-making.
| S-EPMC3533820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the possible value of the perfusion index (PI) as a tool for pain assessment. Methods: This prospective, observational study was performed with 89 patients underwent surgery with general anesthesia. The patients with visual analog scale (VAS) greater than 3 were grouped as M1, and patients with VAS?3 and performed morphine were grouped as M2. After surgery patients with VAS greater than 3 were given 2mg morphine. Patients with VAS greater than 3 were given increments of intravenous morphine (2 mg) at 20 minute intervals until VAS less than 3. The correlation and difference between PI and VAS score values were evaluated before and after analgesic administration. Results: Significant changes were found in both PI values and VAS scores between M1 and M2 groups (2.80±0.77, 3.97±0.94, p less than 0.001; 6.60±1.20, 2.74±0.46, p less than 0.001) Despite no correlation was found between PI values and VAS scores of M1 and M2 groups, weak negative correlation was detected between differences in PI values and VAS scores among groups (r=-0.255, p=0.016). Conclusion: Perfusion index is a parameter that can be used in the assessment of postoperative pain and responses to analgesics.
| S-EPMC6201022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is typically associated with pain, but many patients are not treated.MethodsThis point in time study explored factors associated with treatment status, using logistic regression of data from the Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme conducted in the United States. Patients' treatment status was based on physician-reported, current: 1) prescription medication for OA vs. none; and 2) physician treatment (prescription medication and/or recommendation for specified nonpharmacologic treatment for OA [physical or occupational therapy, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, or cognitive behavior therapy/psychotherapy]) vs. self-management (no prescription medication or specified nonpharmacologic treatment).ResultsThe 841 patients (including 57.0% knee OA, 31.9% hip OA) reported mild (45.4%) or moderate or severe (54.6%) average pain intensity over the last week. The majority were prescribed medication and/or recommended specified nonpharmacologic treatment; 218 were not prescription-medicated and 122 were self-managed. Bivariate analyses showed less severe patient-reported pain intensity and physician-rated OA severity, fewer joints affected by OA, lower proportion of joints affected by knee OA, better health status, lower body mass index, and lower ratings for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks, for those not prescribed medication (vs. prescription-medicated). Multivariate analyses confirmed factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with prescription medication included (odds ratio): physician-rated current moderate OA severity (vs. mild, 2.03), patient-reported moderate OA severity 6 months ago (vs. mild, 1.71), knee OA (vs. not, 1.81), physician-recommended (0.28) and patient-reported (0.43) over-the-counter medication use (vs. not), prior surgery for OA (vs. not, 0.37); uncertain income was also significant. Factors significantly (p < 0.05) associated with physician treatment included (odds ratio): physician-recommended nonpharmacologic therapy requiring no/minimal medical supervision (vs. not, 2.21), physician-rated current moderate OA severity (vs. mild, 2.04), patient-reported over-the-counter medication use (vs. not, 0.26); uncertain time since diagnosis was also significant. Patient-reported pain intensity and most demographic factors were not significant in either model.ConclusionsApproximately 1 in 4 patients were not prescribed medication and 1 in 7 were self-managed, although many were using over-the-counter medications or nonpharmacologic therapies requiring no/minimal medical supervision. Multiple factors were significantly associated with treatment status, including OA severity and over-the-counter medication, but not pain intensity or most demographics.
| S-EPMC9134575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Influenza challenge trials are important for vaccine efficacy testing. Currently, disease severity is determined by self-reported scores to a list of symptoms which can be highly subjective. A more objective measure would allow for improved data analysis. Twenty one volunteers participated in an influenza challenge trial. We calculated the Daily Sum of Scores (DSS) for a list of 16 influenza symptoms. Whole blood collected at baseline and 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours post challenge was profiled on Illumina HT12v4 microarrays. We selected 19 genes with the largest fold change to train a random forest model with out of bag sampling cross validation. We observed good concordance between predicted and actual scores in an independent test set (overall Pearson correlation, r = 0.57; RMSE = -16.1%).
2017-06-10 | GSE90732 | GEO
Project description:MAIN OUTCOME:Thirty patients (60%) found it satisfying or very satisfying to communicate their pain with the app. Pain experienced after surgery was scored by patients as 'no': 3 (6%), 'little': 5 (10%), 'bearable': 25 (50%), 'considerable': 13 (26%) and 'severe': 1 (2%). Forty-five patients (90%) were positive about the ease of recording. Forty-five patients (90%) could correctly record their pain with the app. Thirty-eight patients (76%) agreed that in-app notifications to record pain were useful. Two patients (4%) were too ill to use the application. Based on usability feedback, we will redesign the pain intensity wheel and the in-app pain chart to improve clarity for patients to understand the course of their pain. SECONDARY OUTCOMES:The median patient recorded pain app score 4.0 (range 0 to 10) and nurse recorded numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain NRS 4.0 (range 0 to 9) were not statistically different (p = 0.06). Forty-two percent from a total of 307 patient pain app scores were ? 5 (on a scale from 0 no pain at all to 10 worst imaginable pain). Of these, 83% were recorded as 'bearable' while only in 18% of the recordings patients asked for additional analgesia. The results suggest that self-recording the severity of postoperative pain by patients with a smartphone application could be useful for postoperative pain management. The application was perceived as user-friendly and had high satisfaction rates from both patients and stakeholders. Further research is needed to validate the 11-point numeric and faces pain scale with the current gold standards visual analogue scale (VAS) and NRS for pain.
| S-EPMC7209286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Numerous recently published clinical care guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) Guideline for Low Back Pain (LBP), call for nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. However, little data exist regarding the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted by patients and medical doctors. The study objective was to determine patient-reported treatment recommendations by medical doctors for LBP and patient compliance with those recommendations. Design: This study used a cross-sectional web and mail survey. Settings/Location: The study was conducted among Gallup Panel members across the United States. Subjects: Survey participants included 5377 U.S. adults randomly selected among Gallup Panel members. Of those, 545 reported a visit to a medical doctor within the past year for low back pain and were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding treatment recommendations. Interventions: Participants were asked about medical doctor recommendations for both drug (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, and cortisone injections) and nondrug (self-care treatments, massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and physical therapy) treatments. Outcome Measures: Participants were asked to indicate if their medical doctor recommended each drug and nondrug therapy for their LBP and if they had followed each of those treatment recommendations. Results: Ninety-six percent of patients who visited a medical doctor for LBP received a recommendation for one or more pain treatments, with 81% reporting that their medical doctor recommended both drug and nondrug therapies. Seventy-six percent of respondents were recommended acetaminophen or NSAIDs, 79% were recommended self-care treatments, 37% were recommended massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation, and 60% were recommended physical therapy. Nearly two-thirds of our sample reported that their doctor had recommended prescription medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, or cortisone injections. Reported adherence to treatment recommendations ranged from 68% for acupuncture to 94% for NSAIDs. Conclusions: One year after publication of the ACP's Guideline on LBP, patients report that medical doctors recommended both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment approaches to patients with LBP. In the majority of cases, a combination of prescription medications and self-care were recommended, illustrating the need for additional research on the effectiveness of multi-modal treatment strategies. Patients reported that they were largely compliant with medical doctor recommendations, underscoring the influence that medical doctors have in directing patient care for LBP. These findings indicate that further work is also needed to explore the impact of personal experience, training, clinical evidence, sociocultural factors, and health plans on medical doctors therapeutic recommendations in the context of back pain.
| S-EPMC8035914 | biostudies-literature