Pain Intensity, Pain Control and Pain Control Barriers between Cancer Patients and their Nurses

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to compare the levels of pain intensity and pain relief between cancer patients and nursing records, and to compare the barriers to pain control between cancer patients and their nurses. METHODS: Data were collected from 90 cancer patients who were admitted to three oncology wards and 90 oncology nurses in the same three wards at C University Hospital in G City from July to September, 2012. RESULTS: The most severe pain intensity reported by cancer patients was 6.59 points on the first day of analgesic treatment, while that of their nursing records was 3.98 points on the first day. There were significant changes in pain intensity over time between two groups (F=142.07, p<.001). The highest level of pain relief reported by patients was 2.87 points on the third day, while that of nursing records was 1.67 points on the first day. The score for the social system area of barriers to pain control among the nurses was higher than that of cancer patients (t=-3.69, p=.021). CONCLUSION: Nurses need to frequently check and to be sensitive to cancer pain. Furthermore, the administrative procedures of narcotic analgesics need to be simplified.

Compliance with the Protocol Considered Emetogenic Potential for Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting / 종양간호학회지

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify the compliance with the protocol, which was developed considering the emetogenic potential for prophylaxis of chemotherapy. METHODS: Data was collected from 144 patients who received chemotherapy from June 15 to August 31, 2010 in C University Hospital in Jeollanamdo, Korea. The level of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and the compliance with the protocol for prophylaxis of CINV were measured. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference of CINV in morning sickness and anticipatory nausea of general and clinical characteristics. Also, the compliance with the protocol developed according to emetogenic potential of chemotherapy was statistically significant. There was no difference in CINV in regard to the compliance with the protocol. CONCLUSION: There was a good compliance with the protocol for prophylaxis according to emetogenic potential. But it should be recommended to use antiemetics for prophylaxis aggressively to relieve CINV for the patients who already experienced morning sickness and anticipatory nausea. In addition, the oncology nurses should respond sensitively to the complaints of nausea and vomiting no matter what the emetogenic potentials of chemotherapy regimen are.