An ethical responsibility for pain management

Pain is what hurts: An exploration of perception and management of pain in peripheral blood stem cell donors

BACKGROUND

Pain is a side effect of Granulocyte-Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) administration. This prospective study investigates various aspects including pain perception occurring in Peripheral Blood Stem Cell (PBSC) donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Related and unrelated PBSC donors were prospectively studied. Donors recorded pain symptoms during the four-day period of G-CSF administration using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, a Visual Analog Scale and a pain diary.

RESULTS

There were 208 donors included, 102 (49%) related and 106 (51%) unrelated donors. Ninety-two percent of all reported the occurrence of pain. Moderate or severe pain was reported by 52%. No differences were found between related and unrelated donors. Pain occurred more often in females (p = 0.035). Relatively young donors (age 16-30 years) more frequently showed to have pain in comparison to older donors (>50 years) (p = 0.006). Musculoskeletal pain was most frequently distributed in the gluteal and lower back region (65-71%). Irrespective of the pain location, pain was most often described as nagging, annoying, however tolerable. Donors experiencing pain most on days of G-CSF administration, most frequently occurring during relaxation or at night. Sleep-mode was often affected. The use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) was sufficient for all but one donor.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to describe different aspects of pain associated with G-CSF administration in donors. Although the observed pain was tolerable, it should never be neglected. Knowledge derived from this study is of use for staff members involved in donor information and care management.

Analysis of three advanced practice roles in emergency nursing

BACKGROUND

There are many Emergency Department (ED) demand management systems that include advanced practice emergency nursing roles. The aim of this study is to examine and compare three advanced emergency nursing practice roles: ED Fast Track, Clinical Initiatives Nurse (CIN) and Rapid Intervention and Treatment Zone (RITZ).

METHOD

A descriptive exploratory approach was used to conduct this study at an urban district hospital in Melbourne, Australia. The study participants were patients managed in each of the three systems with advanced practice emergency nursing roles: Fast Track, CIN and RITZ.

RESULTS

There were a total of 551 patients: 195 Fast Track patients, 163 CIN managed patients and 193 RITZ patients. CIN managed patients were older (p<0.001), with higher levels of clinical urgency (p<0.001), and higher hospital admission rates (p<0.001). CIN managed patients had shorter waiting time for nursing care (p=0.001) and lower incidence of medical assessment within the time associated with their triage category (p<0.0001). ED LOS for discharged patients was significantly longer for CIN managed patients (p<0.001). CIN managed patients had a significantly higher incidence of electrocardiography (p<0.001), blood glucose measurement (p<0.001), intravenous cannulation (p<0.001), pathology testing (p<0.001), and analgesia administration (p<0.001) when compared to Fast Track and RITZ patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced practice roles in emergency nursing can have different applications in the ED context. Clarity about role intent and scope of practice is important and should inform educational preparation and teams within which these roles operate.