Relationship between nurses’ pain knowledge and pain management outcomes for their postoperative cardiac patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses' knowledge and perceived barriers related to pain management have been examined extensively. Nurses have evaluated their pain knowledge and management practices positively despite continuing evidence of inadequate pain management for patients. However, the relationship between nurses' stated knowledge and their pain management practices with their assigned surgical cardiac patients has not been reported. Therefore, nurses (n=94) from four cardiovascular units in three university-affiliated hospitals were interviewed along with 225 of their assigned patients. Data from patients, collected on the third day following their initial, uncomplicated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, were aggregated and linked with their assigned nurse to form 80 nurse-patient combinations. Nurses' knowledge scores were not significantly related to their patients' pain ratings or analgesia administered. Critical deficits in knowledge and misbeliefs about pain management were evident for all nurses. Patients reported moderate to severe pain but received only 47% of their prescribed analgesia. Patients' perceptions of their nurses as resources with their pain were not positive. Nurses' knowledge items explained 7% of variance in analgesia administered. Hospital sites varied significantly in analgesic practices and pain education for nurses. In summary, nurses' stated pain knowledge was not associated with their assigned patients' pain ratings or the amount of analgesia they received.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it