Sağlık Çalışanlarında Ağrı Değerlendirme Tercihleri: Türkiye'den Bir Çalışma

Year 2024, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 101 - 104, 30.01.2024

Eylül Pınar Kısa , Uğur Cavlak , Damla Mercan

https://doi.org/10.61399/ikcusbfd.1276066

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Akut ya da kronik ağrısı olan bireylerde tedavi fizyoterapi programı oluştururken ağrı değerlendirmesi tedavinin etkinliğini göstermede büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, sağlık hizmeti sunucularının ağrı değerlendirme tercihlerini belirlemektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Google anketi ile Türkiye'de yaşayan ve çalışan ağrılı hastalarla ilgilenen farklı sağlık kuruluşlarına ulaşıldı. Kendi alanlarında en az bir yıllık iş tecrübesine sahip sağlık hizmeti sunucuları (18-60 yaş arası) dahil edildi. Ankette yaş, cinsiyet, meslek, meslekte çalışma süresi, kurum, akut/kronik hasta takibi, ağrı şiddeti değerlendirme skalası tercihi ve ağrı lokalizasyon değerlendirme tercihi sorgulandı.
Bulgular: Bu ankete toplam 159 (114 kadın ve 45 erkek) sağlık çalışanı katılmış ve anketi yanıtlamıştır. Ağrı şiddetini değerlendirmek için %54.7'si Görsel Analog Skala (GAS) ve %11.9'u Sözel Derecelendirme Ölçeği'ni (SDÖ) tercih ettiğini belirtmişlerdir. Katılımcılar ağrı lokalizasyonunu belirlemek için sözlü geri bildirim ve palpasyonu tercih ettiler.
Sonuç: Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, sağlık hizmeti sunucularının tercihlerinin ilgili literatür ile benzer olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca Türkiye'de çalışan sağlıklı hekimler en çok ağrı şiddeti değerlendirmesini tercih etmektedirler.

Keywords

Ağrı, değerlendirme, anket, sağlık çalışanları, GAS.

Pain Assessment Preferences in Healthcare Providers: A Survey from Turkey

Abstract

Objective: Pain assessment of individuals with acute or chronic pain while creating a physiotherapy program is of great importance in demonstrating the effectiveness of the treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the pain assessment preferences of healthcare providers.
Material and Method: We tried to reach different healthcare providers who are dealing with patients suffering from pain, living and working in Turkey via a Google survey. Healthcare providers (aged 18-60) with at least one year of work experience in their field were included. In the questionnaire, age, gender, profession, working time in the profession, institution, acute/chronic patient follow-up, pain severity assessment scale preference, and pain localization assessment preference were questioned.
Results: A total of 159 healthcare providers (114 females and 45 males) participated in this survey and replied to the questionnaire. 54.7% of them reported that they preferred the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and 11.9% of them preferred the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) to evaluate pain intensity. The participants preferred verbal feedback and palpation to determine pain localization.
Conclusion: In this survey was conducted in Turkey, health providers’ preferences were found to be similar to the related literature. The results obtained from this survey also indicate that health providers working in Turkey mostly prefer VAS in pain intensity assessment.

Keywords

Pain, assessment, survey, healthcare providers, VAS.

References

• Patricia H. Berry, C Richard Chapman, Edward C Covington, June L, DahlJeffery A, Katz Christine Miaskowski et al. NPC and JCAHO (National Pharmaceutical Council Joint Commission on Acreditation of Health Care Organizations). Pain: Current Understanding of Assessment Management and Treatments. 2001; 21.
• Bonica JJ. The need of a taxonomy. Pain 1979; 6:247–8.
• IASP Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain terms: a list with definitions and notes on usage. Recommended by the IASP Subcommittee on Taxonomy. Pain 1979; 6:249–52.
• Bowers KS. Pain, anxiety, and perceived control. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1968 Oct;32(5):596-602. doi: 10.1037/h0026280.
• Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020 Sep 1;161(9):1976-1982. DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001939.
• Jensen MP, Miller LMD, Fisher LD. Assessment of Pain During Medical Procedures: A Comparison of Three Scales. Clin J Pain. 1998; 14(4): 343-9.
• Yeşilyurt M, Faydalı S. Ağrı Değerlendirmesinde Tek Boyutlu Olceklerin Kullanımı. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020; 23(3): 444-451.
• Miner JR, Burton JH. Pain management. In: Walls R, Hockberger R, Gausche-Hill M, editors. Rosen's emergency medicine - concepts and clinical practice. 9th ed. Elsevier Canada; 2018. p. 34–51
• Eti-Aslan F. Ağrı değerlendirme yontemleri. Cumhuriyet Universitesi Hemşirelik Yuksekokulu Dergisi. 2002; 6(1):9-16.
• Karcioglu O, Topacoglu H, Dikme O, Dikme O. A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use? Am J Emerg Med, 2018;36(4), 707–714. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.008.
• Chou R, Gordon DB, deLeon-Casasola O, et al. Management of postoperative pain: clinical guidelines. J Pain 2016;17(2):131-157.
• Gordon Debra B. Acute pain assessment tools: let us move beyond simple pain ratings. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2015; 28(5): 565-569. DOI: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000225.
• Perry S, Heidrich G. Management of pain during debridement: a survey of US burn units. Pain 1982;s13(3):276–80.
• Cavlak U, Kas İskelet Sistemi Ağrısı: Multidisipliner Yaklaşım, İstanbul Tıp Kitapevi, 2016.
• Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38(6):633–8.
• Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Balk GA, Stewart RE. Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain. 2014 Dec;155(12):2545-2550. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.014. Epub 2014 Sep 17.
• Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: visual analog scale for pain (VAS pain), numeric rating scale for pain (NRS pain), McGill PainQuestionnaire (MPQ), short-form McGill PainQuestionnaire (SF-MPQ), chronic PainGrade scale (CPGS), short Form-36 bodily pain scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl. 11): S240–52.
• Gracely RH, McGrath P, Dubner R. Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors. Pain 1978; 5:5–18.
• Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 2005;14(7):798–804.
• Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, Caraceni A, Hanks GW, Loge JH, et al. European palliative care research collaborative (EPCRC). Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;41(6):1073–93.