Comparison of pain assessments made by patients and nurses in emergency services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This research aimed to compare pain assessments made by patients and by nurses. Method: This descriptive and comparative research was conducted in a state, a university and a private hospital emergency service monitoring unit that had the highest number of patient admissions in Ankara, Turkey. The research sample consisted of 175 patients and 35 nurses. For the collection of data, the following sources were consulted: the patient information form, the nurse information form and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. For evaluation of the data, number and percentage calculations, chi-square analysis, kappa compliance analysis and the Wilcoxon sign test were used. Written consent was received from the ethical council and hospitals as well as from nurses and patients. Results: 74.3% of nurses stated that they do not think that the pain level expressed by the patient is always right. While the point average given by patients related to all dimensions define the characteristics of pain was 20.48 ± 10.10, the average given by nurses was 14.35 ± 8.46. There is a statistically significant difference between the point averages given by patients and nurses related to total dimensions of pain characteristics (p<0.05). Conclusion: As a result, pain evaluations of nurses were found to be significantly lower than those of patients. It is suggested that the policies and procedures used in health personnel education institutes and health institutes related to pain management should be improved.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".