Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Anaesth Rep ; 9(1): e12096, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33870199
2.
Anaesthesia ; 72(10): 1237-1242, 2017 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28891060

RESUMEN

The organisational state of inpatient pain management in UK hospitals is difficult to determine. We sent an electronic questionnaire to 209 acute pain service leads throughout the UK. Questions were about staffing and service provision. We received 141 responses (67%); 47% of all UK hospitals. Each service was responsible for a median (IQR [range]) of 566 (400-839 [120-2800]) beds. Each acute pain specialist nurse was responsible for 299 (238-534 [70-1923]) beds. The mean (SD) number of consultant hours per week was 5.54 (4.62), delivered by a median of 1.0 (1.0-2.5 [0.2-7.0]) consultant. Overnight cover was provided by 20 (15%) acute pain services, and weekend cover by 39 (29%). Acute pain services commonly (in 50 (35%) hospitals) had roles in addition to acute pain management. Most teams (105, (77%)) reviewed medical patients and patients with chronic pain (in 131, (96%) teams). Half of the services (56, (49%)), reported that they were part of an integrated acute and chronic pain service, however, 83 (59%) did not have any members who work in chronic pain clinics. The majority (79, (70%)) were able to access a nominated chronic pain consultant for advice. Provision of acute pain services throughout the UK is highly variable. The majority do not meet core UK standards.


Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/terapia , Clínicas de Dolor/organización & administración , Dolor Postoperatorio/terapia , Consultores/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Hospitalización , Humanos , Clínicas de Dolor/normas , Manejo del Dolor/normas , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/normas , Cuidados Posoperatorios/normas , Medicina Estatal/organización & administración , Medicina Estatal/normas , Reino Unido
3.
Anaesthesia ; 72(6): 737-748, 2017 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28832908

RESUMEN

Pain is a common and distressing symptom experienced by intensive care patients. Assessing pain in this environment is challenging, and published guidelines have been inconsistently implemented. The Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT) study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of physician pain assessments with respect to published guidelines. This observational service evaluation considered all pain and analgesia-related entries in patients' records over a 24-h period, in 45 adult intensive care units (ICUs) in London and the South-East of England. Data were collected from 750 patients, reflecting the practice of 362 physicians. Nearly two-thirds of patients (n = 475, 64.5%, 95%CI 60.9-67.8%) received no physician-documented pain assessment during the 24-h study period. Just under one-third (n = 215, 28.6%, 95%CI 25.5-32.0%) received no nursing-documented pain assessment, and over one-fifth (n = 159, 21.2%, 95%CI 19.2-23.4)% received neither a doctor nor a nursing pain assessment. Two of the 45 ICUs used validated behavioural pain assessment tools. The likelihood of receiving a physician pain assessment was affected by the following factors: the number of nursing assessments performed; whether the patient was admitted as a surgical patient; the presence of tracheal tube or tracheostomy; and the length of stay in ICU. Physician-documented pain assessments in the majority of participating ICUs were infrequent and did not utilise recommended behavioural pain assessment tools. Further research to identify factors influencing physician pain assessment behaviour in ICU, such as human factors or cultural attitudes, is urgently needed.


Asunto(s)
Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Dimensión del Dolor/estadística & datos numéricos , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Dolor Postoperatorio/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Enfermería/estadística & datos numéricos , Evaluación en Enfermería , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Médicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Reino Unido , Adulto Joven
5.
Anaesthesia ; 71(10): 1169-76, 2016 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27501056

RESUMEN

This study compared two methods of controlling the intracuff pressure in laryngeal mask airways. One hundred and eighty patients were randomly assigned into two groups. In the first group (n = 90), after training, the intracuff pressure was controlled using digital palpation of the pilot balloon. In the second group (n = 90), continuous manometry was used to control the intracuff pressure. An upper pressure limit of 60 cmH2 O was set. The median (IQR [range]) intracuff pressure in the palpation group was 130 (125-130 [120-130]) cmH2 O compared with 29 (20-39 [5-60]) cmH2 O in the manometry group (p < 0.001). In the palpation group, 37% of patients experienced pharyngolaryngeal complications vs. 12% in the manometry group (p < 0.001). We conclude that the digital palpation technique is not a suitable alternative to manometry in controlling the intracuff pressure in laryngeal mask airways.


Asunto(s)
Máscaras Laríngeas , Monitoreo Fisiológico/métodos , Palpación/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Manometría/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...