Pain management in intensive care unit patients after cardiac surgery with sternotomy approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Postoperative pain is a common problem among intensive care patients. Pain management includes pain assessment and documentation, patient care, and pharmacological treatment. Materials and methods. The study used a prospective, cross-sectional design. Nineteen intensive care nurses and 72 intensive care patients after cardiac surgery with sternotomy approach were studied. Toronto Pain Management Inventory was used to assess nurses and the 2010 Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire was used to assess the patients. A research protocol was used to document pharmacological treatment data and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain measurements. The pharmacological therapy data was available for 72 patients, but patient satisfaction measurements were acquired from 52 patients. Results. Postoperative pain for intensive care patients after cardiac surgery is mostly mild (68.66%). Pain intensity had a tendency to decrease over time, from a mean VAS score of 4.66 two hours after extubation to a mean VAS score of 3.12 twelve hours after extubation. Mostly opioids (100%) and nonsteroidal anti‑inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, 77.8%) were used for pharmacological treatment, and treatment was adjusted according to pain levels and patient needs. Patient satisfaction regarding pain management in the first 24 hours after surgery was high (94.2%), even though the nurses’ pain knowledge was average (X = 60.6 ± 7.3%). Conclusions. An individualized pain management plan requires pain documentation and ensures high patient satisfaction. Pain levels after cardiac surgery with sternotomy approach are mostly mild and patient satisfaction is high.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".