4.1 Article

Children's postoperative pro re nata (PRN) analgesia: Nurses' administration practices

期刊

CONTEMPORARY NURSE
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 160-172

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.5172/conu.2011.37.2.160

关键词

pro re nata; PRN; analgesia administration; pain relief; paediatric nursing; postoperative

类别

资金

  1. Queensland Health Nursing Research Grant - Novice Researcher Category

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims and objectives: This paper reports a study aimed at exploring the nursing practices associated with the administration of pro re nata (PRN) postoperative analgesia to children, and at gaining a preliminary understanding of the decisions that nurses make about this important intervention. Background Nurses are responsible for assessing and administering the appropriate medication at the appropriate time to the child in pain. There was scant published research about the administration of postoperative PRAY analgesia to children, or about the decision-making processes inherent in this aspect of clinical nursing care. Design: A sequential mixed methods explanatory study with two data collection phases quantitative followed by qualitative - was conducted. Results: Nurses used multiple strategies to ascertain children's need for postoperative PRN analgesia, including reference to pain assessment tools, focussing on the behavioural cues of children, involving parents and children, and drawing upon personal and professional backgrounds and experience. Evaluation of the effectiveness of PRN postoperative analgesia was poorly communicated. Conclusions: Decision-making associated with the selection and administration of appropriate analgesia to children is complex. In-service education should be developed and offered to nurses working with children postoperatively to ensure the appropriate use of PRN pain relief Relevance to clinical practice: Documentation surrounding this task is poor and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure quality patient outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据