护理人员癌痛知识及态度的调查

癌痛是癌症患者尤其中晚期癌患者重要症状之一。影响癌痛控制是否满意的一个重要因素是进行有关癌痛知识的教育及普及。本文借助世界卫生组织提供的医护人员癌痛知识及态度调查表，采用多中心调查方法，于１９９６年７～８月对６家医院１６６名肿瘤科护士（师）进行了随机调查，结果显示：相当一部分护士缺乏癌痛知识及鸦片类药物临床药理学知识，没有完全掌握世界卫生组织大力倡导的三阶梯药物止痛方法及有关原则。提示我们应加强对护士进行有关癌痛知识及技能的教育及培训。     

癌症疼痛的治疗

癌症的严重疼痛难以控制而影啊病人的生存质量,约1/3癌症病人因严重疼痛、2/3以上晚期病人需用吗啡类药治疗。然而,癌痛的治疗常不恰当。因许多国家对麻醉剂的过度限制,医护人员缺乏对癌痛的认识和处理的基本技术。wHO指出:单用药物至少能使70％癌痛缓解;综合治疗,包括适当的神经松解术可使另外30％受益。癌痛表现复杂,首先应对其病人进行评价、     

PainVision系统量化评估癌痛及化疗神经毒性的应用分析

背景与目的：癌症相关性疼痛是晚期肿瘤患者的重要临床症状,而化疗常导致周围神经病变,引发疼痛,严重影响患者的生活质量。目前癌痛的评估大都通过患者主观量表来实现,缺乏客观评价手段。本研究借助PainVision系统(PV法)从神经电生理角度定量地进行癌痛评估,检测分析化疗导致的神经病变程度。方法：癌痛患者通过数字疼痛强度量表(numerical rating scale,NRS)主观量表和PV法同时进行疼痛评估,将PV法所得检测值与NRS评分进行相关性分析;对化疗患者进行电流知觉阈值(current perception threshold,CPT)检测,了解化疗对患者CPT水平的影响,尝试PV法进行化疗神经毒性的检测。结果：癌痛患者所测得疼痛比(PainRatio)和患者NRS评分线性相关(Pearson系数为0.849,P＜0.001);伴有神经毒性临床症状的患者CPT水平升高,但接受奥沙利铂、紫杉醇和其他药物化疗后的患者CPT水平未见明显差异。结论：PV法可以定量地进行癌痛评估,有助于相对客观地进行癌痛分析。化疗后有明显神经病变的患者出现CPT升高,提示PV法具有潜在检测与评估化疗导致神经毒性的临床应用价值。     

门诊癌痛患者阿片类药物治疗全程管理的安全性评估

目的:评价门诊患者全程管理接受癌痛治疗的安全性。方法:回顾性调查分析对比癌痛病房创建前后门诊癌痛患者经全程评估,指导治疗,随访等全程管理的安全性。结果:全程管理后爆发痛的次数减少,毒副作用减轻,患者心境平和。结论:门诊癌痛患者全程管理是重要的,可指导患者正确服药,学会处理爆发痛及阿片类药物毒副作用的预防及处理,提高了阿片类药物的安全使用。     

催眠治疗改善癌症患者疼痛的临床研究和问卷调查

  目的  研究催眠疗法治疗癌痛的有效性,了解医护人员和患者对催眠疗法治疗癌痛临床应用的认知与需求。  方法  回顾性选取2020年1月至2020年12月于华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院招募罹患癌症且伴有疼痛的患者120例,进行8周的认知催眠治疗。比较癌痛患者接受催眠治疗2、4、8周后疼痛数字评分（NRS）、汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）评分、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）评分及睡眠量表（MOS-SS）评分的变化;设计《催眠疗法治疗癌痛认知与需求调查问卷》,对2020年6月至2020年9月住院的354例癌痛患者和301名肿瘤科医护人员展开调查。  结果  120例癌痛患者参与了催眠治疗并完成了2周的评估,109例（90.8%）完成8周的治疗评估。催眠治疗2、4、8周后,NRS评分显著下降（P<0.05）;催眠治疗4、8周后,HAMA、HAMD评分显著下降（P<0.05）,MOS-SS评分显著升高（P<0.05）。84.1%的医护人员认为有必要常规开展认知催眠治疗;64.4%的癌痛患者能接受催眠治疗。  结论  催眠疗法可以减轻癌痛,同时降低癌痛患者的焦虑、抑郁情绪,改善患者睡眠状况;加强医护人员和患者的宣传教育对催眠疗法的临床应用具有重要意义。      

再谈疼痛的充分评估

癌痛治疗中一个很大的问题是评估不充分。临床上影响我们对疼痛评估的主要因素与患者对疼痛的认识存在复杂的心理有关。另外对疼痛治疗不充分的风险因素和患者的依从性关注不足,也是疼痛控制不充分的原因。强调通过我们的交流和教育,使患者正确理解缓解疼痛的重要性,主动表达自己的感受。     

癌痛规范化诊疗评估体系的初步应用*

目的:对已建立的癌痛规范化诊疗评估体系进行初步临床应用，探索癌痛诊疗工作的不足之处。方法:分析从徐州市中心医院等三家医院肿瘤科采集的41份医生问卷、43份护士问卷、50份患者问卷和12份科室问卷，找出临床癌痛诊疗工作的主要不足；对此三家医院肿瘤专科和与肿瘤相关的非肿瘤专科进行评估，采用秩和检验分析两者关于癌痛诊疗工作的差异。结果:医生、护士、科室的平均评分分别为85.41± 5.93、88.46± 5.09、83.75± 3.11分，而患者平均评分仅68.67± 7.14分；其中患者止痛有效性与安全性评分换算为百分制后为81.69± 7.71分，但关于止痛观念改变的评分换算后仅为55.78± 11.37分。肿瘤专科平均得分82.22± 2.03分，非肿瘤专科平均得分39.27± 3.58分，经秩和检验WilcoxonW 值为120.0，P < 0.01。结论:患者止痛治疗的观念教育仍需进一步加强；与肿瘤相关的非肿瘤专科在癌痛诊疗方面有较大欠缺，迫切需要进一步加强继续教育。      

广州市基层医院癌痛规范化治疗现状及障碍因素分析

目的 探讨广州市基层医院医务人员癌痛诊疗知识水平及癌痛治疗现状,分析可能的阻碍因素,为提高基层医院癌痛管理水平提供依据。方法 举办基层医院癌痛规范化治疗学习班,参会医务人员填写调查表。共收集有效调查表120份,分析表中数据,并进行统计学处理。结果 在癌痛基本诊疗知识方面,基层医院医务工作者平均得分为12.2±3.5,医师、护士、药剂师及管理人员的得分差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;既往参加过癌痛诊疗培训及未参加过培训的医务人员的得分差异亦无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。目前广州基层医院癌痛诊疗中最常见的不良用药习惯为有创给药、阿片类药物应用不合理,而癌痛管理知识不足、担心阿片类药物不良反应、药物供应不充分是导致目前基层医院癌痛诊疗不规范的主要因素。结论 提高基层医院医务人员的癌痛诊疗知识水平,加强对患者及家属的宣教,提供足量、齐全的止痛药物,是提高广州基层医院癌痛规范化诊疗的可行途径。     

癌症患者疼痛量表的应用

癌痛本质上是患者的主观感受,因此患者的疼痛表述是评估的依据,患者自评量表也由此在临床实践和研究中被广泛采用。一维量表常用于评估癌痛的强度,其中的数字评估量表（Numerical Rating Scale,NRS）被欧洲姑息治疗研究协作组所推荐;多维量表,如简式疼痛问卷（Brief Pain Inventory,BPI）或修订后的简式麦吉尔疼痛问卷（Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire,SF-MPQ-2）可更全面的评估癌痛;评估肿瘤患者的爆发痛、神经病理性疼痛时可选择有针对性的量表;对认知功能受损的患者,脸谱法评估有助于癌痛筛查,要评估癌痛还需采用多维量表。无论选择何种评估工具,均强调对癌痛进行动态评估。简便易行的电子评估量表是目前癌痛新量表研制的趋势。      

盐酸吗啡缓释片治疗妇科癌痛患者的临床观察

目的:观察盐酸吗啡缓释片(美菲康)治疗妇科中度至重度癌痛患者的疗效和安全性.方法:135例妇科癌痛患者开始剂量每12小时30mg,按VAS观察法治疗癌痛的疗效及安全性.结果:74.4％的患者平均日剂量≤90mg.盐酸吗啡缓释片(美菲康)控制妇科中重度癌痛总体有效率为90.66％.患者生活质量评分较治疗前显著升高(P ＜0.0001).主要不良反应为便秘、恶心、呕吐和头晕.结论:盐酸吗啡缓释片(美菲康)治疗妇科中度至重度癌痛患者疗效显著,能有效提高患者的生活质量,安全可靠.     

The burden of pain of inpatients undergoing radiotherapy--discrepancies in the ratings of physicians and nurses

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to rate the burden of pain of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy from the point of view of the patients themselves as well as the physicians and nurses caring for the patient, and to examine possible differences in the ratings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 68 cancer patients received a pain questionnaire about pain intensity and subjective well-being. At the same time, physicians and nurses answered 7 pain-related questions about each patient. RESULTS: 34% of the patients reported strong or very strong pain in the past week, 8% even unbearable pain. 66% felt psychologically distressed, 70% developed anxiety because of pain. 74% believed that pain is an essential part of the disease. Nurses and physicians often underestimate patients' burden of pain. Nevertheless, the rating of the nurses is more accurate than that of the physicians. CONCLUSION: Physicians and nurses often underestimate pain intensity. It seems that several patients are unable or unwilling to express their pain or that therapists lack adequate methods of pain assessment. To optimize pain treatment, communication between patients, physicians and nurses needs to be improved.     

Feasibility of quantitative pain assessment in outpatient oncology practice.

PURPOSE: Although physicians view failure to assess pain systematically as the most important barrier to outpatient cancer pain management, little is known about pain assessment in this setting. We sought to determine whether pain is routinely assessed and whether routine quantitative pain assessment is feasible in a busy outpatient oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a pre- and postintervention chart review of 520 randomly selected medical and radiation oncology patient visits at a community hospital-based private outpatient practice. The intervention consisted of training health assistants (HAs) to measure and document patient pain scores by using a visual analog scale. The main outcome measures included HA documentation of patient pain scores, quantitative and qualitative mention of pain in the physician note, and analgesic treatment before and after the intervention. RESULTS: After the intervention, HA documentation of pain scores increased from 1% to 75.6% (P < .0001). Physician documentation increased from 0% to 4.8% for quantitative documentation (P < .01), and from 60.0% to 68.3% for qualitative documentation (not significant). Of all the patients, 23.1% reported significant pain. Subgroups with greater pain included patients actively receiving radiation treatments and patients with lung cancer. Of patients with significant pain, 28.2% had no mention of pain in the physician note and 47.9% had no documented analgesic treatment. CONCLUSION: Quantitative pain assessment was virtually absent before our intervention but easily implemented and sustained in a busy outpatient oncology practice. Pain score collection identified a high prevalence of pain, patient subgroups at risk for pain, and a significant proportion of patients with pain that was neither evaluated nor treated by their oncologists.     

The management of breakthrough cancer pain – educational needs a European nursing survey

Poorly managed cancer pain is well known to profoundly impact the patient's daily life and interfere with quality of life. Nurses who cared for patients with cancer from 12 European countries participated in a survey of breakthrough cancer pain practice. The purpose was to investigate how nurses assess breakthrough cancer pain, use of standardised tools, confidence in supporting patients and awareness of medications. Responses from 1241 participants showed country variations. The majority of the sample was female, Germany had the highest proportion of male nurses (21.0%), followed by Greece (15.8%). A significantly larger proportion of nurses with longer experience and more education (78.8%) used a comprehensive definition of breakthrough cancer pain. Significant variations in training were found; 71% of Finnish nurses had received training compared with 6% of Greek nurses. Training and using a standardised assessment tool was associated with a significant increase in the nurses' perceived ability to distinguish between breakthrough and background pain. Nurses in countries with the highest proportion of training were most confident in supporting patients. In conclusion, there still exists problems with effective management of patients' breakthrough cancer pain, continuing inability to define the difference between background and breakthrough cancer pain leads to poor treatment.     

上海市医师对癌症疼痛的认识及治疗状况——2007年调查结果

目的:调查上海市医师对癌症疼痛的认识和治疗现状.方法:2007年1-3月对上海市106所二、三级医院1 982名医师进行癌痛治疗知识及治疗情况的问卷调查并进行统计学分析.结果:对"三阶梯止痛"治疗方案,52.3%的医师表示非常了解,比1999年上升了21.6个百分点,肿瘤科医师的了解程度明显好于非肿瘤科医师; 16.8%的医师对镇痛治疗剂量滴定的3个主要原则回答完全正确,肿瘤科医师回答的正确率高于非肿瘤科医师;强阿片类药物成为医师治疗重度癌痛的首选药物,应用杜冷丁治疗重度癌痛的比率下降;74.8%的患者通过治疗能使疼痛明显减轻,比1999年上升了25.4个百分点;81.1%的医师肯定疼痛治疗效果,肿瘤科医师对治疗效果更为乐观; 93.3%的医师认为有必要继续开展癌痛治疗知识的培训,其中非肿瘤科医师的需求更高.医院和政策法规限制过严是目前使用止痛药物的主要障碍.结论:医师对癌痛的认识和诊治水平较1999年有较大提高,但仍需进一步开展癌痛治疗知识的培训,推广规范性治疗并消除止痛药物的用药障碍.     

Palliative care team at general hospital

Some three hundred thousand patients die from cancer in a year, most of whom end their lives at a general hospital. Considering this situation, the general hospital has to provide palliative care and make up interdisciplinary Palliative Care Team (PCT). Since April 2002, we established a PCT at Akita City Hospital. Our PCT educated doctors and nurses for palliative care medicine and established a system for palliative care. For example, the assessment sheet of cancer pain is useful for treatment of pain and to equally recognize the patient's condition by each team. The PCT provides support for doctors and nurses in the general unit. We general doctors must learn more about how to provide palliative care medicine for at least cancer pain as well as cancer treatment. A team approach is needed for all cancer patients.     

Nurses' perceptions of their pain assessment skills, pain management practices, and attitudes toward pain

Nursing pain assessments are influenced by the length of available tools, patient characteristics, patient pathology, concern about addictive behavior, and characteristics of the nurse. The relationship among these variables was explored in a sample of community hospital nurses (N = 59) and ONS members (N = 19). Although a number of interesting similarities were found in the two groups, age, professional and continuing education, and care setting appear to be related to differences in pain assessment practices. Implications for practice, research, and education include teaching nurses to: assess factors related to quality of life in the pain experience, assess and validate data from families, assess coping skills, and teach patients to use behavioral pain management strategies. The findings also suggest that further study is needed concerning the relationship between personal beliefs and experiences and the assessment and management of pain. Membership in professional organizations appears to be associated with comprehensive approaches to the assessment and management of cancer pain and should be addressed in further research.     

WHO cancer pain relief programme

Cancer pain relief is a ubiquitous but neglected public health problem. Every day more than three and a half million people suffer from cancer pain, but only a fraction receive treatment for it. Relatively simple and inexpensive methods of pain relief are available. Adequate pain relief is not reaching a great number of cancer patients in developed countries. In the developing countries, where more than half the world's cancer patients are and where most are incurable at the time of diagnosis, pain relief (often the only relevant human alternative) by and large is not offered. Obstacles to effective cancer pain relief worldwide include poor drug availability, misguided national drug legislation, lack of education of doctors and nurses, underprescribing and underdosing by the professionals, wrong timing of drugs given, fear of addiction and lack of public awareness that pain can be controlled. A World Health Organization (WHO) method has been developed which provides for drugs to be administered immediately if there is pain, to be given 'by the clock' rather than 'on demand' and to be increased from non-opioids (aspirin or paracetamol) to weak opioids (codeine) and then to strong opioids (morphine) until the patient is free from pain--hence the concept of a three-step ladder for cancer pain relief. Field tests have shown that the right drug in the right dose at the right time relieves 80 to 90% of pain. Thus a scientifically valid, relatively inexpensive method suitable for reaching patients at community level does exist.     

Patients' and nurses' assessment of cancer pain

The purpose of this study was to examine hospitalised cancer patients' and nurses' assessment of patients' cancer pain and to compare them. The data were collected from 51 patient–nurse pairs in two hospitals from oncological and medical clinics. Each nurse and patient took part in the study no more than once. The data were collected with a structured interview and the questionnaire. The intensity of pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Finnish version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (FPQ). The results showed that the differences between patients' and nurses' assessments were statistically significant for most intensive pain and for acceptable pain. In both cases nurses' assessments of the intensity of pain were lower than patients' assessments. The nurses identified 40 words in the verbal FPQ that the patients used in describing their experiences of pain. The words used most often by patients were agonizing, tender, wave-like and radiant. The word that the nurses used most often was that of intense. Nurses' knowledge about pain medication in general and morphine in particular was clearly associated with the differences observed in estimates of the intensity of pain. Nurses with poor knowledge underestimated the patients' most intensive experiences of pain. The difference was statistically significant.