International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages 13-20, February 2012

Ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients’ symptoms with two different patient education methods

  • Katja Heikkinen, MNSc, RN

      Affiliations

    • University of Turku, Department of Nursing Science, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +358 50 401 9999; fax: +358 2 333 8400.
    • ,
  • Helena Leino-Kilpi, PhD, RN (Professor and Head of Department/Nurse Manager)

      Affiliations

    • University of Turku, Department of Nursing Science, Hospital District of Southwest Finland, Finland
    • ,
  • Tero Vahlberg, MSc (Biostatistian)

      Affiliations

    • University of Turku, Department of Biostatistics, Finland
    • ,
  • Sanna Salanterä, PhD, RN (Professor/Nurse Manager)

      Affiliations

    • University of Turku, Department of Nursing Science, Hospital District of Southwest Finland, Finland

published online 05 August 2011.

Article Outline

Summary 

Aim

To evaluate changes in ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients’ symptoms during the surgical process and to compare whether the two different patient education methods had an effect on patients’ symptoms during the ambulatory surgical process.

Design

A randomised controlled trial was used. Ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients in one university hospital in Finland participated in the study.

Methods

Patients were randomised to either an experiment group (n=72) that received Internet-based patient education or to a control group (n=75) that received face-to-face education with a nurse. Data were collected at seven different time points during the surgical process. A structured instrument called “The Symptoms” with a visual analogue scale was used. Results were statistically analyzed.

Results

Ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients had few severe symptoms during the surgical process. Severity of symptoms changed during the surgical process. The severity of symptoms did not decrease after the patient education, and they were highest on the first post-operative day. There were no differences in the symptoms of patients in the two groups.

Conclusion

Patients symptoms’ were dependent of the surgical process and were strongest right after the surgery. Thus, both education methods can be recommended equally when working with ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients.

Keywords: Patient education, Internet, Ambulatory surgery, Symptom

 

Editor’s comment

This article compares two methods used to educate patients which is then assessed to see what impact it has on a number of variables over a given length of time. Trying to cover all aspects of education in relation to the patients orthopaedic experience, and attempting to guage its affect on problems such as pain, is always difficult. This study uses previous literature and builds upon it to give us a little more insight to the care of ambulatory orthopaedic patients.

BS

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

An increasing number of patients are undergoing operations in ambulatory surgery settings (OECD Health Data, 2010). After spending short periods in hospital, ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients might experience different levels of pain (Chung, 1995, Jenkins et al., 2001, Rawal, 2010, Apfelbaum et al., 2003, Coll et al., 2004a, Susilahti et al., 2004, Suhonen et al., 2007, McHugh and Thoms, 2002, Idvall et al., 2008); amounts of bleeding (Chung, 1995); vomiting (Chung, 1995, Stockdale and Bellman, 1998, Beauregard et al., 1998, Wu et al., 2002, Susilahti et al., 2004); nausea (Jenkins et al., 2001, Oberle et al., 1994, Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998, Wu et al., 2002, Susilahti et al., 2004); headache (Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998); sore throat (Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998); dizziness (Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998); fatigue (Oberle et al., 1994, Beauregard et al., 1998, Susilahti et al., 2004); drowsiness (Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998); and hoarseness (Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998).

The main reasons for unplanned readmissions after ambulatory surgery are pain, urinary retention, wound bleeding, infection, and haematoma (Watson et al., 2004). Poorly managed pain may also interfere with wound healing, adding to a patient’s suffering, which can prolong his or her recovery (Bardiau et al., 2003). Despite the fact that ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients experience different symptoms during the surgical process, the severity of symptoms other than pain is rarely measured. There seems to be variations in the intensity of symptoms, and comparing symptoms is problematic because researchers use different instruments (Coll et al., 2004a, Coll et al., 2004b).

It is known that patients’ experience of pain varies during the surgical process. Post-operative pain is usually the strongest during the first and second day (Oberle et al., 1994, McHugh and Thoms, 2002, Apfelbaum et al., 2003, McGrath et al., 2004). Beauregard et al. (1998) found that almost half of patients (n=89) reported moderate to severe pain during the first 24h after discharge. Pain decreased over time but was severe enough to interfere with daily activities, even seven days after surgery. McHugh and Thoms (2002) studied patients’ pain expressions using Verbal Descriptor Scale (VDS scale; none, mild, moderate, severe pain). Severe pain presented as a problem for approximately 20% of patients (n=120) on the second post-operative day and continued to present as a problem for a few of the patients on the fourth post-operative day. Furthermore, on the fourth post-operative day, approximately 20% of patients reported that their pain had not improved. Apfelbaum et al. (2003) reported that approximately 80% (n=250) of patients in their study experienced acute pain after surgery. Half of these patients experienced moderate pain and almost 40% experienced severe to extreme pain at some time during their post-surgical recovery period. Overall, 82% of patients reported that they had experienced some pain until the second week after their discharge.

Education supports patients to manage their symptoms and recovery (Wong et al., 2010). Several researchers have studied the benefits of preoperative education on post-operative symptoms, using meta-analyses and reviews (Devine, 1992, Shuldham, 1999, Coll et al., 2004a, Johansson et al., 2004, Johansson et al., 2005, Wofford et al., 2005). Some researchers found that pre-operative patient education is effective in reducing the following post-operative complications: pain (Devine, 1992, Shuldham, 1999, Lewis, 2003), nausea, vomiting, and fatigue (Johansson et al., 2004). There are, however, conflicting results concerning pain reduction (Johansson et al., 2004, Johansson et al., 2005, Wofford et al., 2005). There are a limited number of studies focusing on ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients’ education or the evaluation of different education methods. Goldsmith and Safran (1999) studied the use of Internet-based education for reducing ambulatory surgery patients’ post-operative pain. Patients receiving extra information about pain from a website evaluated their post-operative pain as lower than patients receiving information that only related to the surgical process. It is typical that educational interventions focus on one, or very few areas of knowledge, such as the bio-physiological e.g. pain, whilst also measuring pain severity as an outcome (Goldsmith and Safran, 1999).

In our study, an empowering Internet-based patient education method was used, meaning that the education used a multidimensional approach relating to the whole ambulatory surgical process (Leino-Kilpi et al., 1998, Leino-Kilpi et al., 1999). We hypothesized that this knowledge would cognitively empower patients to handle the severity of symptoms during their ambulatory surgical process (Leino-Kilpi et al., 1998, Leino-Kilpi et al., 1999, Heikkinen et al., 2008).

Back to Article Outline

Aim of the study 

Our goal was to evaluate changes in ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients’ symptoms during the surgical process and to compare whether the two different patient education methods had an effect on patients symptoms during the ambulatory surgical process. The experiment group received Internet-based patient education, and a control group received face-to-face education conducted by a nurse.

Research questions:

(1)How did the patients rate their symptoms at seven time points during the ambulatory surgical process?

(2)Were the symptom scores associated with the phases of the surgical process?

(3)Did either of the two different patient education methods have an effect on the patients’ symptom scores?

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

Study design and sample 

Ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients were randomly allocated to either an experiment or control group. All ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients (n=173) attending one of five university hospitals in Finland during the period July 2005 to September 2006 were eligible for inclusion in this study. The inclusion criteria were: patients age over 18years, Finnish-speaking, access to the Internet at home and able to use it, those with no cognitive disabilities, those capable of completing the instruments, and those who were able to give informed consent.

The only exclusion criteria related to those patients who were rated at being above the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of II or above – otherwise a normal healthy patient. These patients were excluded due to pre-operative education. All patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria received an invitation to participate in our study along with the letter they received concerning the ambulatory surgery operation. The first instrument (baseline) was included with the invitation. The response rate was 86% (149/173).

Patients were randomized either to the experiment group (n=72), which received patient education through the Internet, or to a control group receiving oral education by nurses (n=77). Two patients in the control group were excluded from the study because they did not participate in the patient education. Randomization was stratified on: gender, age, and the location of the operation. Neither the patients nor the study co-ordinator were aware of the educational assignment until after the randomisation.

Experiment group 

Patients in the experiment group participated in an Internet-based patient education program designed for this study. It was a structured programme and based on six areas of knowledge: bio-physiological, functional, experiential, ethical, social, and financial (Leino-Kilpi et al., 1998, Leino-Kilpi et al., 1999), all of which are defined as being important in the cognitive empowerment process (Heikkinen et al., 2008). The website contained different topics related to the surgery: instructions for patients preparing for the operation, events that occur on operation day, follow-up care, and ethical and financial aspects. Patients visited the website 1–121days (mean=14days) before the operation. They used the website from one to six times and spent an average of 81min using the site (ranged from 10 to 300min). Patients were able to contact a nurse via email or phone. However, only a few patients used this option.

Control group 

Patients in the control group participated in face-to-face sessions with a nurse (in total, eight nurses) that were held in a room in the ambulatory surgery unit. Patients were given a leaflet about the content of the session. Education with a nurse had the same theoretical content as the Internet-based education. All participatory nurses were trained for this study. They knew the content of the website, and they had a printed version of the website contents available to them. The ‘control’ education session lasted on average 22min (range 10–40min), and it took place on average 9days before the operation (range 1–55days).

Instruments and data collection 

The data were collected using a structured instrument called “The Symptoms”, which comprised of two questionnaires (S), one a pre-operative (SPRE) and one a post-operative (SPOST) version. These were used in total seven times in order to see if there were any changes in patients’ evaluations of their symptoms during the ambulatory surgical process. The survey was used at the following times: (1) before pre-operative patient education (baseline); (2) after pre-operative patient education, but still pre-operatively; (3) on operation day before surgery; (4) one day after the operation; (5) three days after the operation; (6) two weeks after the operation; and (7) four weeks after the operation.

The SPRE asked about five symptoms that might occur pre-operatively: headache, pain in the area of planned surgery (pain in the operated area), pain elsewhere, sleeplessness, and difficulties with movements. The SPOST asked about 16 items, including the five symptoms in the SPRE and eleven symptoms that occur especially post-operatively: vomiting, nausea, dizziness, tiredness, problems with urination, problems with digestion (like constipation), problems with washing and with hygiene, swelling of the operation area, redness of the operation area, bleeding of the operation area, and fever.

Both the SPRE and SPOST evaluation of symptoms were undertaken using a vertical Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 100mm). Scores on the left side (0) indicated low intensity or severity, and those on the right side (100) indicated intolerable intensity or severity of symptoms. The questions in SPRE and SPOST were based on theoretical literature (e.g., Oberle et al., 1994, Chung, 1995, Beauregard et al., 1998, Susilahti et al., 2004) and on statements by an expert panel (three nurses, two physicians, and three researchers). The instrument was piloted by 17 ambulatory surgery patients. Demographic characteristics obtained from the baseline included: age, gender, basic and vocational education, employment status, employment in social and health care, the number of ambulatory surgeries, and long-term illness.

Statistical analysis 

SPSS for Windows (version 16.0) was used to analyze the data. Continuous variables are presented as means and standard deviation, and categorical data are presented as frequencies and percentages. The Pearson Chi-Square test was used to make comparisons of the samples demographic characteristics among people in the groups.

Each patient’s estimations of his or her symptoms (measured with the SPRE and SPOST) were grouped into three classes: low (0⩽29.9mm), moderate (30.0⩽69.9mm), and high (70.0⩽100mm). The decision to use this range of scores was based on earlier studies about the use of VAS in the context of pain (Collins et al., 1997, Kelly, 2001). Usually scores over 30 is indicative of a patient needing special attention and support from the health professional (Ene et al., 2008).

The estimations of symptoms were used as dependent variables in an ordinary logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, which accounts for an association between repeated measurements. Ordinary logistic regression included the effect of the method of patient education used, the measurement of time, and the interaction between the method of patient education and the measurement of time. All tests were conducted at the 5% significance level (Burns and Grove, 2005).

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Description of patients 

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups (n=147: 72 in the exp. group and 75 in cont. group) in the demographic variables (p=0.189–0.976). Fewer patients were women (46% exp. group/44% cont. group). Patients’ ages ranged from 18 to 69years in the experiment group and 18–67 in the control group (mean 44.2years in the exp. group and 43.5years in the cont. group). Most of the patients had no long-term illness (79% in both groups), and most of the patients in both groups were in the ASA I group (68% in the exp. group/76% in the cont. group). Most of the patients had undergone a shoulder arthroscopy operation; (62% in the exp. group/57% in control group). The rest had undergone a knee arthroscopy operation. More than half of the patients had experienced earlier ambulatory surgery (58% exp./57% cont. group).

Patients’ evaluations of their symptoms 

Ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients scored their symptoms low. Before the patient education (baseline), several patients in both groups rated their symptoms as moderate or high. More than half of the patients scored their pain at the operative area as moderate or high. A third of the patients (30%) scored their pain as being located elsewhere other than the operation area and rated difficulties with movements to be moderate or high. After the patient education (2nd measurement), the scores relating to difficulties with movements decreased and was statistically significant (p=0.018). After the operation (3rd measurement), many patients reported moderate or high scores of pain in the operated area and difficulties with movement were common (40–60%). Four weeks post-operatively (7th measurement), approximately 10% of patients in both groups scored their pain as being somewhere else with sleeplessness and difficulties with movements rated as moderate. Approximately 30% of patients in the experiment group and approximately 10% of patients in the control group were experiencing moderate pain in the operated area (Table 1).

Table 1. Patients’ symptom scores grouped into three classes: (1) low, (2) moderate, (3) high score in seven different measurement times in the experiment and control groups (patient education method) in percentages (%). The effects of the patient education method, measurement time, and interaction between the patient education method and measurement time were tested.
Symptom scoresBefore the patient education⁎
Baseline		After the patient education ⁎⁎
2nd measurement		Operation day preoperatively
3rd measurement		First postoperative day
4th measurement		Third postoperative day
5th measurement		Two weeks postoperatively
6th measurement		Four weeks postoperatively
7th measurement
exp./control N=72/N=75exp./control N=71/N=73exp./control N=72/N=74exp./control N=71/N=74exp./control N=71/N=74exp./control N=71/N=73exp./control N=71/N=72
Headache ⁎⁎
Low100/10088.6/94.494.4/93.297.1/98.693.0/97.3100/98.694.4/100
Moderate–/–8.6/5.64.2/5.41.4/1.45.6/2.7–/1.42.8/–
High–/–2.9/–1.4/1.41.4/–1.4/––/–2.8/–
COR (95% C1) 10.71 (0.31–1.65)0.23 (0.06–0.87)0.55 (0.24–1.25)––
p-Value 0.4240.0300.145

Pain operated area
Low42.6/44.345.5/40.963.9/67.635.2/35.167.6/62.270.4/72.671.8/87.5
Moderate36.8/38.647.0/51.530.6/25.743.7/51.428.2/32.425.4/23.328.2/9.7
High20.5/17.17.6/7.65.6/6.821.1/13.54.2/5.44.2/4.1–/2.8
COR (95% C1)10.80 (0.59–1.09)0.35 (0.24–0.51)1.25 (0.82–1.91)0.36 (0.24–0.55)0.27 (0.18–0.41)0.17 (0.11–0.26)
p-Value 0.156⩽0.0010.302⩽0.001⩽0.001⩽0.001

Pain somewhere else
Low70.0/74.069.6/82.688.7/91.987.1/95.988.7/95.987.3/91.784.3/93.1
Moderate21.4/23.327.5/15.911.3/5.410.0/4.19.9/4.19.9/4.210.0/5.6
High8.6/2.72.9/1.4–/2.72.9/–1.4/–2.8/4.25.7/1.4
COR (95% C1)10.84 (0.67–1.06)0.49 (0.36–0.68)0.45 (0.32–0.64)0.42 (0.30–0.60)0.54 (0.39–0.75)0.56 (0.41–0.77)
p-Value 0.146⩽0.001⩽0.001⩽0.001⩽0.001⩽0.001

Sleeplessness
Low67.6/77.074.3/80.381.7/81.776.1/82.287.3/86.584.5/86.387.3/93.1
Moderate23.9/17.617.1/14.115.5/18.318.3/15.112.7/12.29.9/12.39.9/5.6
High8.5/5.48.6/5.62.8/–5.6/2.7–/1.45.6/1.42.8/1.4
COR (95% C1)10.78 (0.55–1.12)0.56 (0.36–089)0.68 (0.41–1.12)0.38 (0.21–0.68)0.45 (0.27–075)0.28 (0.15–0.52)
p-Value 0.1760.0130.132⩽0.0010.002⩽0.001

Difficulties with movement
Low70.8/73.275.7/87.086.1/97.361.4/60.875.7/76.778.6/79.584.5/88.9
Moderate23.6/25.420.0/10.113.9/2.725.7/29.720.0/20.521.4/17.812.7/11.1
High5.6/1.44.3/2.9–/–12.9/9.54.3/2.7–/2.72.8/–
COR (95% C1)10.60 (0.40–0.92)0.23 (0.13–041)1.78 (1.15–2.77)0.81 (0.51–1.31)0.68 (0.44–1.04)0.40 (0.24–0.66)
p-Value 0.018⩽0.0010.0100.3970.072⩽0.001

Ordinal logistic regression with generalized estimating equations.

COR=cumulative odds ratio; COR>1 indicates increase of symptom scores (moderate or high versus low scores).

CI confidence interval.

⁎=on average37days before operation.

⁎⁎=on average 9 (control) −14 (experiment) days before operation.

Patients’ symptoms changed in a statistically significant way during the surgical process (p⩽0.001–0.043). After the patient education, patients’ scores related to difficulties with movement decreased at a statistically significant rate (p=0.018). On the operation day, all symptom scores decreased (p⩽0.001–0.013) compared to the baseline. Two weeks post-operatively, all patients’ symptom scores decreased statistically, significantly (Table 1).

The method of patient education (the experiment and control group) had no significant effect on most symptom scores (p=0.084–0.589). However, this did impact on the scores in response to the questions regarding pain in relation to ‘somewhere else’ other than the operated area (p=0.033). Four weeks post-operatively patients in the experiment group scored their pain in a region ‘somewhere else’ higher than patients in the control group. Interaction between the method of patient education and symptoms at different measurement times were tested (logistic regression), and no significant interactions were found (p=0.258–0.903). This result indicates that the change in symptom scores was similar at different time points in both groups throughout the ambulatory surgical process.

The symptoms that were measured only post-operatively were vomiting; nausea, dizziness, tiredness, problems with urination, problems with digestion (like constipation), problems with washing and with hygiene, swelling of the operation area, redness of the operation area, bleeding of the operation area, and fever. Patients gave these symptoms rather high ratings shortly after the operation. On the first post-operative day, almost half of the patients in both groups scored their tiredness, problems with washing and hygiene, and swelling of the operation area as moderate or high. Four weeks after the operation (7th measurement), approximately 7% of patients in both groups gave moderate scores to tiredness but low scores to other symptoms (0–5.6%).

Patients evaluations on post-operatively evaluated symptom scores changed significantly during the ambulatory surgical process at different measurement times: dizziness (p⩽0.001), tiredness (p⩽0.001), problems with digestion (p=0.001), problems with washing and with hygiene (p⩽0.001), swelling of the operation area (p⩽0.001), redness of the operation area (p=0.038) and bleeding of the operation area (p=0.033). On the third post-operative day, the scores on dizziness (COR=0.13, p=⩽0.001), tiredness (COR=0.37, p=⩽0.001), problems with washing and with hygiene (COR=0.55, p=⩽0.001), swelling of the operation area (COR=0.45, p=⩽0.001), redness of the operation area (COR=0.31, p=0.025), bleeding of the operation area (COR=0.18, p=0.033) decreased. Four weeks post-operatively, the decrease was statistically significant on the following scores: tiredness (COR=0.12, p=⩽0.001), problems with digestion (COR=0.21, p=⩽0.001), washing and hygiene (COR=0.03, p=⩽0.001), swelling of the operation area (COR=0.05, p=⩽0.001), and redness of the operation area (COR=0.23, p=0.02).

The method of patient education (the experiment and control group) had no significant effect on post-operatively evaluated symptom scores (p=0.283–0.981). The interaction between the method of patient education and symptoms (measured only post-operatively) at different measurement times were tested with logistic regression, and no significant interactions were found (p=0.159–0.959), indicating that the change in symptom scores was similar in both groups at different time points throughout the ambulatory surgical process.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

We evaluated the changes in ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients’ reported symptoms during the surgical process and compared two different patient education methods: Internet-based patient education (experiment) and face-to-face education conducted by a nurse (control) to see whether they had an effect on patients’ symptoms during the ambulatory surgical process.

Patients experienced quite similar symptoms post-operatively compared to those in earlier studies (e.g., Chung, 1995, Jenkins et al., 2001, McHugh and Thoms, 2002, Susilahti et al., 2004, Coll et al., 2004a, Suhonen et al., 2007). Patients’ reports of symptoms were highest during the first post-operative days. It is essential to identify those patients scoring their symptoms high and address the symptoms to prevent complications and ensure a smooth recovery process (Bardiau et al., 2003, Watson et al., 2004). Four weeks after surgery, patients’ scores on all these symptoms were significantly lower than pre-operatively or on the first post-operative day. However, four weeks after surgery, there were still approximately 10% of patients scoring moderate pain in the operated area, pain elsewhere, sleeplessness, or difficulties with movements. These findings of pain are consistent with the findings reported in earlier studies (Beauregard et al., 1998, McHugh and Thoms, 2002, Apfelbaum et al., 2003). Our results revealed that these patients’ recovery process was longer than four weeks, which might be a period of time that is too short to evaluate patients’ symptoms.

No matter which method of patient education was used, there were no differences in patients’ symptoms. The effect of different education methods relating to patients’ symptoms is unclear in the earlier studies (e.g., Devine, 1992, Shuldham, 1999, Johansson et al., 2004, Wofford et al., 2005). In addition, in some of the earlier studies, the education focused only on a few symptoms (Goldsmith and Safran, 1999). However, one can conclude that education that includes multidimensional knowledge is appropriate. This makes sense because patients will experience different symptoms during their surgical process, and their knowledge and expectations might vary. In summary, pre-operative patient education can be recommended as a standard method for all patients coming for ambulatory orthopaedic surgery.

There were some limitations in this study concerning the instrument, analysis, sample and intervention used. We wanted to create a more comprehensive view of patients’ evaluations of different symptoms. That is why we included a wide spectrum of symptoms in the SPRE and SPOST surveys. In previous studies, symptoms were usually measured one by one, e.g., pain (McHugh and Thoms, 2002, Coll et al., 2004a, Suhonen et al., 2007). For that reason, it is not necessarily relevant to compare the results of this study with earlier studies. SPRE and SPOST instruments were designed for this study. The instruments were easy to use and the dropout rates were low (see Table 1). The VAS scale was classified into three classes based on earlier studies about the use of VAS in the evaluation of pain (Collins et al., 1997, Kelly, 2001). However, two classes might have been enough for some of the symptoms because of the small number of patients reporting the highest scores. On the other hand, the use of means of the symptom scores was not appropriate, because the means were so low. The study sample was drawn from one university hospital in Finland. The surgical procedures are quite similar in Finland and these results may be useful also in other countries due to the similarity of surgical procedures worldwide. Patients’ earlier experiences of surgery may have had an effect on results, because more than half of the patients had experienced earlier ambulatory surgery in both groups. However this effect was similar in both groups. In addition, the education intervention used may have affected the result. Although the patients’ surveyed were of a wide age range, this did not appear to be the case. All patients in both education groups managed well with their education. Also the patients in the experiment group could use the website without any problems and evaluated it as ‘easy’ to use.

Back to Article Outline

Conclusion 

We found that ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients did not report many severe symptoms. Patients’ evaluations of their symptoms varied during the surgical process and were not impacted by the education they received. Our findings suggest that either Internet-based patient education or face-to-face education can be used with ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients.

Back to Article Outline

Conflict of Interest Statement 

None of the authors had any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with people or organizations within three years of beginning the work submitted that could inappropriately influence their work.

Back to Article Outline

Ethical Approval 

All relevant permissions and ethical approval to conduct this study were obtained from the ethical research committee of the district hospital and from the organisation concerned. Patients participated in this study voluntarily and signed an informed consent form.

Back to Article Outline

Funding Source 

This study was supported by the South-Western Hospital District of Finland.

Back to Article Outline

Contributions 

Study design: KH, SS, HLK; data collection: KH, TL; data analysis: KH, TV; and manuscript preparation: KH, SS, TL, HLK.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. American Association of Anaesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. Retrieved 4th of January 2011, from <http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm>.
  2. Apfelbaum JL, Chen C, Mehta SS, Gan TJ. Postoperative pain experience. Results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged. Anesth. Analg. 2003;97(2):534–540
  3. Bardiau FM, Taviaux NF, Albert A, Boogaerts JG, Stadler M. An intervention study to enhance postoperative pain management. Anesth. Analg. 2003;96(1):179–185
  4. Beauregard L, Pomp A, Choiniere M. Severity and impact of pain after day-surgery. Can. J. Anaesth. 1998;45(4):304–311
  5. Burns N, Grove SK. The Practice of Nursing Research; Conduct, Critique and Utilization. second ed.. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 2005;
  6. Chung F. Recovery pattern and home-readiness after ambulatory surgery. Anesth. Analg. 1995;80(5):896–902
  7. Goldsmith DM, Safran C. Using the web to reduce postoperative pain following ambulatory surgery. AMIA. 1999;780:784
  8. Coll AM, Ameen JRM, Moseley LG. Reported pain after day surgery: a critical literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004;46(1):53–65
  9. Coll AM, Ameen JRM, Moseley LG. Postoperative pain assessment tools in day surgery: literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004;46(2):124–133
  10. Collins SL, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. The visual analogue pain intensity scale: what is moderate pain in millimetres?. Pain. 1997;72(1–2):95–97
  11. Devine EC. Effects of psychoeducational care for adult surgical patients: a meta-analysis of 191 studies. Patient Educ. Couns. 1992;19(2):129–142
  12. Heikkinen K, Leino-Kilpi H, Nummela T, Kaljonen A, Salanterä S. A comparison of two educational interventions for the cognitive empowerment of ambulatory orthopaedic surgery patients. Patient Educ. Couns. 2008;73(2):272–279
  13. Idvall E, Berqvist A, Silverhjelm J, Unosson M. Perspectives of Swedish patients on postoperative pain management. Nurs. Health Sci. 2008;10(2):131–136
  14. Jenkins K, Grady D, Wong J, Correa R, Armanious S, Chung F. Post-operative recovery: day surgery patients preferences. Br. J. Anaesth. 2001;86(2):272–274
  15. Johansson K, Salanterä S, Heikkinen K, Kuusisto A, Virtanen H, Leino-Kilpi H. Surgical patient education: assessing the interventions and exploring the outcomes from experimental and quasi experimental studies from 1990 to 2003. Clin. Effectiveness Nurs. 2004;8(2):81–92
  16. Johansson K, Nuutila L, Virtanen H, Katajisto J, Salanterä S. Preoperative education for orthopaedic patients: systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005;50(2):212–223
  17. Kelly AM. The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain. Emerg. Med. J. 2001;18(3):205–207
  18. Leino-Kilpi H, Luoto E, Katajisto J. Elements of empowerment and MS patients. J. Neurosci. Nurs. 1998;30(2):116–123
  19. Leino-Kilpi H, Mäenpää I, Katajisto J. Nursing study of the significance of rheumatoid arthritis as perceived by patients using the concept of empowerment. J. Orthop. Nurs. 1999;3(3):138–145
  20. Lewis D. Computers in patient education. Comput. Informatic Nurs. 2003;21(2):88–96
  21. McGrath B, Elgendy H, Chung F, Kamming D, Curti B, King S. Thirty percent of patients have moderate to severe pain 24 hours after ambulatory surgery: a survey of 5703 patients. Can. J. Anaesth. 2004;51(9):886–891
  22. McHugh GA, Thoms GMM. The management of pain following day-case surgery. Anaesthesia. 2002;57(3):270–275
  23. Oberle K, Allen M, Lynkowski P. Follow-up of same day surgery patients. AORN. 1994;59(5):1016–1025
  24. OECD Health Data, 2010. Total Surgical Day Cases. Retrieved 4th of January 2011, from <http://www.ecosante.org/>.
  25. Rawal N. Postoperative pain management in day surgery. Anaesthesia. 2010;53(2):50–52
  26. Stockdale A, Bellman M. An audit of post-operative pain and nausea in day case surgery. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 1998;15(3):271–274
  27. Suhonen R, Virtanen H, Heikkinen K, Johansson K, Kaljonen A, Leppänen T, et al. Health-related quality of life of day-case surgery patients: a pre/posttest survey using the EuroQoL-5D 2007. Qual. Life Res. 2007;17(1):169–177
  28. Shuldham C. A review of the impact of pre-operative education on recovery from surgery. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 1999;36(2):171–177
  29. Susilahti H, Suominen T, Leino-Kilpi H. Recovery of Finnish short-stay surgery patients. Medsurg. Nurs. 2004;13(5):326–335
  30. Watson B, Law R, Cole J. Unplanned readmission after day surgery: setting a standard. J. One-Day-Surg. 2004;14(4):103–104
  31. Ene KW, Nordberg G, Bergh I, Johansson FG, Sjöström B. Postoperative pain management – the influence of surgical ward nurses. J. Clin. Nurs. 2008;17(15):2042–2050
  32. Wu CL, Berenholtz ZM, Pronovost PJ, Fleisher LA. Systematic review and analysis of post-discharge symptoms after outpatient surgery. Anesthesiology. 2002;96(4):994–1003
  33. Wofford JL, Smith ED, Miller DP. The multimedia computer for office-based patient education: a systematic review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2005;59(2):148–157
  34. Wong EM-L, Chan SW-C, Chair S-Y. Effectiveness of an educational intervention on levels of pain, anxiety and self-efficacy for patients with musculoskeletal trauma. J. Adv. Nurs. 2010;66(5):1120–1131

PII: S1878-1241(11)00033-5

doi:10.1016/j.ijotn.2011.04.004

International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing
Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages 13-20, February 2012

Article Tools