Give rationales for all of your answers.
- Identify and define the most commonly used data collection methods for qualitative research?
- What are the most commonly used data collection methods used for each of the following qualitative research traditions:
- Grounded Theory
Relative to the Heikkinen et al. article, answer the following questions and include supporting rationales.
- What data collection methods were used (be sure to include nurse measures, patient measures, and physiologic measures)?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of each data collection method?
“BELOW IS THE ARTICLE”
ISSUES AND INNOVATIONS IN NURSING PRACTICE
Prostatectomy patients’ postoperative pain assessment in the recovery room
Katja Heikkinen MNSc RN
Lecturer, Turku Polytechnic and Department of Nursing, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Sanna Salantera¨ PhD RN
Adjunct Professor, Department of Nursing, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Marjaana Kettu RN
Head of Department, Ophtalmology Clinic, Turku University Central Hospital, Turku, Finland
Markku Taittonen MD PhD
Consultant Anaesthesiologist, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Turku University Central Hospital, Turku,
Accepted for publication 16 February 2005
Department of Nursing,
University of Turku,
FIN – 20014,
HEIKKINEN K., SALANTERA¨ S., KETTU M. & TAITTONEN M. (2005) Journal of Advanced Nursing 52(6), 592–600
Prostatectomy patients’ postoperative pain assessment in the recovery room
Aim. This paper reports a study to assess the usability and use of different pain assessment tools and to compare patients’ and nurses’ pain assessments in the recovery room after prostatectomy.
Background. Pain assessment is the first step towards providing adequate pain relief but poses problems because of the subjective nature of the pain experience and the lack of quantifiable measurements. Pain tools have been tested in several clinical settings, but not in the recovery room.
Methods. Data were collected in the recovery room from 45 consecutive patients who had undergone prostatectomy by asking them to evaluate their pain intensity using visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale and verbal expressions. One of two research nurses measured patients’ pain at regular intervals and at the same time as the patients. Physiological parameters were also evaluated. Data were analysed as frequencies and percentages. Sum variables were formed and results were analysed using Spearman’s rank correlation, Pearson’s correlation and with multiple regression analysis.
Results. Patients varied in their ability to assess the intensity of their pain using different tools, but assessments were correlated with each other and with nurses’ estimations. Nurses and patients obtained similar assessments, but nurses both underestimated and overestimated patients’ pain. Patients’ verbal assessments varied widely. Patients’ and nurses’ pain assessments showed no association with patients’ pulse or mean arterial blood pressure.
Conclusions. According to our results, it is not totally clear whether pain tools are usable in the recovery room. This issue calls for further research.
Keywords: nursing, pain, pain measurement, prostatectomy, recovery room
2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Assessing pain in the recovery room is challenging, because patients are still under sedation. Several tools for pain assessment have been developed, but their suitability in the recovery room is largely untested. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the usability and use of pain assessment tools in the recovery room.
Relevant articles for the study were retrieved from the following databases: Cochrane, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL. The main keywords and their combinations were pain, postoperative, pain measurement, instrument, prostatectomy, and recovery room.
In this study, pain was defined according to the definition of the International Association for the Study of Pain: ‘Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage’ (Merskey & Bogduk 1994, pp. 209–214). Pain is also regarded as a personal and subjective experience that should be evaluated by patients themselves whenever possible (McCaffery & Pacero 2001).
Postoperative pain is an expected outcome for patients after surgical procedures and it impairs organ functions, delays mobilization and overall recovery as well as increasing the risk of postoperative complications (Kehlet 1997, Breivik 1998, Carr & Goudas 1999, Coll et al. 2004a). Nonetheless there is long-standing evidence of inadequate pain relief, in spite of increasing treatment options (Bostro¨m et al. 1997, Watt-Watson et al. 2000). Mild pain seems to be common following radical retropubic prostatectomy (Sall et al. 1997, Dalpra & Zampieron 1998, Haythornthwaite et al. 1998).
It seems that people are prepared to accept postoperative pain (Wulf et al. 1998, Dawson et al. 2001, Leinonen et al. 2001). Also, after prostatectomy, patients are very satisfied or satisfied with their postoperative pain care, and such a curative operation affects feelings and pain tolerance (Klein et al. 1996, Worwag & Chodak 1998). Affective distress, particularly anxiety before surgery, and the use of pain medication afterwards, may be predictors of chronic pain following prostatectomy (Haythornthwaite et al. 1998).
Pain assessment is the first step towards adequate pain relief. It has two major problems: first, the subjective nature of the pain experience; and second, the lack of quantifiable measurements (McGuire 1992, Watt-Watson et al. 2000). Most prostatectomy patients are old, and as such may need more time to assess their pain (Simons & Malabar 1995, Melzack & Wall 1996). Older patients may receive more attention and pain interventions than younger patients, and evidence suggests that men might be given more medication than women (Simons & Malabar 1995, Yorke et al. 2004).
Information and other support may help patients evaluate their experiences of pain, but the main difficulty is that different people respond to pain in different ways. Hence, direct comparisons are therefore impossible, even where the underlying cause of pain is the same. Verbal assessments may also be misinterpreted (McGuire 1992, Ferguson et al. 1997).
Pain measurement tools
The use of a simple, valid and reliable pain assessment tool in the clinical practice would standardize assessment and contribute to more effective management and evaluation of pain (Taylor 1997). The most common tools are the visual analogue scale (VAS) and 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS) (Jensen et al. 1986, Carpenter & Brockopp 1995, Coll et al. 2004b), as well as the verbal rating scale (VRS) or verbal descriptor scale (VDS) (Bondestam et al. 1987). The quantitative analysis of the results from these scales is problematic, because it yields a classification where pain is slotted into given categories that are defined in advance. However, the boundary lines between the different categories have not been verified, which complicates the task of interpreting the results (Chapman et al. 1985, Bondestam et al. 1987).
Although VAS provides only a unidimensional measure of pain, its construct validity is good and it can adequately distinguish between minimal, regular and maximal pain (Price et al. 1983). Carpenter and Brockopp (1995) concluded that patients have a tendency to use the middle parts or the ends of the scales. The VAS is easy to complete: it has limited use if the patient is too ill to point at the line, if he or she is unable to conceptualize pain in an abstract fashion along a line, or if the patient is visually, cognitively or physically impaired (Kremer et al. 1981, Chapman et al. 1985, Paice & Cohen 1997). The VAS may also be designed as a red wedge that increases in size towards the right. This has been found to simplify and clarify the use of the tool (Zalon 1993).
Problems have also been reported in the use of NRS, but it is still a useful tool for the purposes of assessing the intensity of acute pain (Bondestam et al. 1987, Scott 1994, Heid & Jage 2002). The NRS offers more alternatives than VDS, but less than VAS (Paice & Cohen 1997). The problem with NRS is that some people have difficulty describing the intensity of pain by reference to numbers (Scott 1994, Ferguson et al. 1997, De Rond et al. 1999).
Several studies on cancer patients have proven VAS, NRS and VRS as valid tools (De Conno et al. 1994, Paice & Cohen 1997), but it was also found that patients did not rate their pain in a mathematically equivalent way – VAS ratings were lower than NRS ratings. On the other hand, many studies in cancer patients have reported positive correlations between estimations based on VAS and NRS (Carpenter & Brockopp 1995, Paice & Cohen 1997).
The reliability of VAS and NRS has not been widely tested in surgical patients, and there are no earlier studies set in a recovery room context. The NRS has been used in an
Australian intensive care unit to measure pain intensity and pain distress (Ferguson et al. 1997), as well as in the clinical area of an emergency department (Puntillo et al. 1999). Sjo¨stro¨m et al. (2000) investigated the pain assessments of critical care nurses (n ¼ 30), physicians (n ¼ 30) and postsurgical patients (n ¼ 180) using VAS. Patients’ expressions seem to be associated with the fact that nurses have underestimated their pain.
In the recovery room, where patients are often tired and unwell, it is important that pain assessment is a quick and easy process with simple and sensitive measures (Jenkinson et al. 1995), especially with the elderly (Closs 1996). Analgesics and anaesthetics may influence patients’ awareness and their ability to assess pain after operation (Bowman 1994). With VAS and NRS pain assessment can easily be repeated, allowing for accurate estimates of the effectiveness of pain management (Scott 1994).