A Study of Patients and Nurses' Perception of the Quality of Pain Management in the Patients Undergoing Surgery in the Departments of Surgery of Rasht Hospitals in 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE & FIELD: More than one hundred million people around the world undergo a surgery annually. Although, the surgery itself is a treatment method to relieve pain and discomfort, it can be considered as one of the important factors to make a pain too. Perception and diagnosis of the pain is the most important duty of nurses. Effective pain management after surgery facilitates the patient's recovery, decreases the length of hospitalization and increases the patient satisfaction. This study aims to investigate the patients and nurses' perception of the quality of pain management in the patients undergoing an abdominal surgery. MATERIALS & METHODS: The current study is a descriptive research that has been conducted on 204 candidate patients for the abdominal surgery and the nurses who care them in the departments of surgery of Rasht hospitals by using the Simple Random Sampling method. The necessary tools in gathering data for the questionnaire consist of demographic characteristics. Idval,E et al's Questionnaire for evaluation and pain perception, numerical and visual evaluation tools for the patient and nurse satisfaction with pain relief. Statistical analysis has been made through the 16 version of SPSS software by using descriptive statistics, average and standard deviation. FINDINGS: The results show that the level of patient satisfaction with providing necessary care to relieve pain was 29.1% (maximum), 20.8% (minimum) and 78.7% to the confidence, environment and all areas, respectively. For the nurses, this level was 32.4% (maximum), 16.4% (minimum) and 77.1% to the performance, environment and all areas, respectively. The maximum level of patient perception of satisfaction with pain relief was 49.1% and for the nurses, it was 37.7% (good level). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the patients' perception of providing necessary cares to relieve pain and their satisfaction with the pain relief are more than the nurses and in a good level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".