CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Egan, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Ready, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Egan, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Ready, L. B.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 41, 6-11, Copyright © 1994 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society


ARTICLES

Patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine

KJ Egan and LB Ready
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle 98195.

In many institutions postoperative patients may receive morphine for analgesia administered into the epidural space, epidural opioid analgesia (EOA), or through intravenous self-administered patient-controlled analgesia pumps (PCA). Although a number of studies have compared the two approaches with regard to efficacy and side effects, there is less known with regard to patient satisfaction and its sources. In this study, 711 patients using PCA morphine and 205 patients receiving epidural morphine following a variety of gynaecological, urological, orthopaedic, and general surgical procedures rated their satisfaction with the method they used on a 0-10 verbal analogue satisfaction scale (0 = very dissatisfied; 10 = very satisfied). A consecutive subset of 100 patients (50 from EOA group and 50 from the PCA group) underwent further evaluation to identify advantages and disadvantages of the technique used which contributed to their satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction. Overall satisfaction (mean +/- SD) in the two large groups was 8.6 +/- 1.8 for PCA and 9.0 +/- 1.5 for EOA (P < 0.01). In the subset of 100 patients, there were differences between the EOA and PCA groups with regard to the advantages and disadvantages selected. Patients in the PCA group identified "personal control" and "method worked quickly" as advantages whereas patients receiving EOA selected "clear mind," "effective relief resting," and "effective relief while moving or coughing." The single disadvantage identified more frequently by PCA patients was "pain immediately after surgery before method became effective." Disadvantages identified more frequently by EOA patients were "side effects" and "poor pain relief." We conclude that overall patient satisfaction was high whether patients received PCA or EOA.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
P. J. Koo
Addressing stakeholders' needs: Economics and patient satisfaction
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., March 15, 2007; 64(6_Supplement_4): S11 - S15.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.