A Systematic Review of Race, Sex, and Socioeconomic Status Differences in Postoperative Pain and Pain Management.

PURPOSE: Optimal postoperative pain management remains a significant problem despite the availability of multiple preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pain management interventions. Recent studies suggest that racialized minorities, female sex, and individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to experience more severe pain and inadequate pain management postoperatively. Our systematic review aimed to determine race, sex, and SES differences in postoperative pain and postoperative pain management. DESIGN: This study is a systematic review of literature. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we systematically searched 5 databases: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. We included primary source peer-reviewed articles published after 1990 that measured postoperative pain and race/ethnicity, sex/gender, or SES, which were published in English. Two pairs of reviewers independently screened each title, abstract, and article for inclusion. In cases of disagreement, a third reviewer broke the tie. FINDINGS: A total of 464 articles were screened, of which 32 were included in this study. In most studies, Blacks/African American experience more severe postoperative pain than Whites/Caucasians. Whites were more likely to be prescribed opioids for pain management than Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Also, individuals of lower SES and females reported more postoperative pain. One study found no race/ethnic group differences in pain scores and opioid use after the implementation of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal postoperative pain relief continues to be a challenge for individuals who self-identify as racialized minorities, females, and those of lower SES. Standardization of care may help reduce disparities in postoperative pain management.

Comparison of Pericapsular Nerve Group (PENG) Block Versus Quadratus Lumborum (QL) Block for Analgesia After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common operative procedures performed. Controlling postoperative pain following THA remains a challenge due to the complex innervation of the hip joint and the recent desire to preserve motor function following nerve blockade. Several nerve block techniques have been used for THA in the past, but the quadratus lumborum (QL) block and the blockade of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) have emerged as opiate-sparing regional anesthesia techniques that preserve motor function. To date, little data comparing the two block techniques exists. The purpose of our study was to compare outcomes following these techniques in patients undergoing primary THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis utilized data from three distinct groups who underwent primary THA at our institution: 45 patients who received PENG block, 38 patients who received QL block, and 77 control patients. Chart review analysis was performed by authorized personnel to obtain cumulative oral morphine equivalent (OME) data at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (primary outcomes). In addition, visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 12, 24, and 48 hours, ambulation distance, and length of hospital stay data were obtained (secondary outcomes). Group comparisons were conducted using either analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's multiple comparison test for parametric data or Krustal-Wallis with Dunn's multiple comparison tests for nonparametric endpoints. RESULTS: This study found a statistically significant difference in cumulative OME usage across all groups at 24 and 48 hours. Significant difference in OMEs was found between QL and control and PENG and control; however, no difference was found in OMEs between PENG and QL groups at either time point. There was a statistically significant difference in VAS scores in the PACU across all groups; QL showed significantly lower VAS scores in the PACU compared to PENG and control, while PENG only showed significantly lower VAS scores compared to control. There was a statistically significant difference in VAS scores at 24 hours across all groups; however, only QL showed significantly lower VAS scores compared to control at 24 hours. QL was associated with a statistically significant increase in the length of hospital stay compared to PENG. CONCLUSION: This study showed no difference between OME usage in patients who received PENG or QL nerve blocks for primary THA. VAS scores were similar between groups with the exception of QL outperforming PENG in the PACU. Optimizing postoperative pain via multi-approach strategies should remain a priority for patients undergoing THA. Future research is warranted in order to provide guidance on best practice for these patients.

Mentoring Team Projects for the Doctor of Nursing Practice: Considerations for Nurse Anesthesia Faculty.

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing and the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs have specified that Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Doctor of Nursing Anesthesia Practice students complete a doctorate project as part of the education toward becoming Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists. As nurse anesthesia programs (NAPs) transition to DNP entry into practice, management of DNP projects has been identified as a major challenge facing nursing faculty. Also, adequate mentorship has been identified as a crucial part of doctorate education. Despite the absence of literature on team mentorship in nursing, many NAPs are opting for DNP team projects and group mentoring. In team DNP projects, the mentors foster professionalism, establish the ground rules for communication, resolve conflict, and provide expert knowledge. Effective implementation of projects can enhance relational learning and teamwork, which are essential for a successful career in healthcare. Additionally, mentoring teams can simultaneously improve the professional growth of junior faculty, reduce the faculty workload, and improve the quality of DNP projects. This article brings attention to best practices for mentoring DNP team projects and also provides an exemplar of successful implementation of DNP team projects in a NAP.