M W Stomberg | PubMed Health

PubMed2001

Routine intra-operative assessment of pain and/or depth of anaesthesia by nurse anaesthetists in clinical practice.

Patient safety and comfort during general anaesthesia and surgery are to a considerable extent dependent on the capability of anaesthesia personnel to interpret directly monitored as well as indirect clinical signs of pain and/or depth of anaesthesia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate how nurse anaesthetists in their clinical routine work assess and interpret intra-operative responses evoked by pain stimuli and/or insufficient depth of anaesthesia. A questionnaire was designed to assess the perceived relevance and validity of cardiovascular, respiratory, mucocutaneous, eye-associated, and muscular responses for routine assessment of intra-operative pain and/or insufficient depth of anaesthesia in patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Data were obtained from 223 nurse anaesthetists working at nine different university anaesthesia departments in Sweden. A number of significant indicators for pain and depth of anaesthesia could be identified for spontaneously breathing as well as for mechanically ventilated patients. No variable was considered entirely specific for either intra-operative pain or depth of anaesthesia. Changes in breathing rate/volume, central haemodynamics (BP, HR), lacrimation, and presence of moist and sticky skin were given higher score values as indicators of pain than as indicators of depth of anaesthesia. Occurrence of grimaces, attempted movements, and presence of non-centred pupils were variables considered more indicative of insufficient depth of anaesthesia than intra-operative pain. In conclusion, it is obvious from the present data that indirect physiological signs of intra-operative pain and depth of anaesthesia are still considered of importance by Swedish anaesthesia nurses in the anaesthetic management of surgical patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Assessing pain responses during general anesthesia.

Major technical and pharmacological achievements in recent years have greatly influenced the practice of anesthesia. Clinical signs related to the main aspects of anesthesia, i.e., hypnosis, analgesia, and muscular relaxation, are increasingly obtainable from variables supplied by the monitoring equipment. It is not known, however, to what extent more indirect, patient-associated clinical signs of pain/depth of anesthesia are still considered of importance and relied on in the intraoperative management of surgical patients. The aims of the present study were to assess what clinical signs, indirect as well as monitor-derived, are considered indicative of intraoperative pain or depth of anesthesia by nurse anesthetists during general anesthesia. In connection with anesthetic management of surgical patients, Swedish nurse anesthetists (N = 40) were interviewed about clinical signs that they routinely assessed and were asked if the observed signs were considered indicative mainly of intraoperative pain or depth of anesthesia. It was found that skin-associated responses (temperature, color, moisture/stickiness) were commonly considered to indicate intraoperative pain rather than depth of anesthesia. Respiratory movements, eye reactions, and circulatory responses were considered to be indicative of either pain or insufficient depth of anesthesia. The present data indicate that indirect physiological signs are still considered of major importance by anesthesia nurses during the anesthetic management of surgical patients.

Anesthesia, General↗