Analysis of primary nursing intervention for elderly patients with cancer pain on the improvement of potential risk and pain degree

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the effect of primary nursing on the improvement of potential risk and pain degree in elderly patients with cancer pain.

Methods: Altogether 187 patients with cancer pain from June 2018 to November 2019 were selected as the research participants and grouped into two groups according to different nursing intervention methods, including 102 cases in the research group (RG) and 85 cases in the control group (CG). The pain relief and medication compliance were evaluated. General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) and Exercise of Self-Care Agency (ESCA) were used to evaluate the self-efficacy and self-care ability. Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to evaluate the anxiety and depression. Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was used to evaluate sleep quality. SF-36 Quality of Life Scale was used to evaluate the quality of life. Self-made nursing satisfaction questionnaire was used to evaluate the nursing satisfaction.

Results: The improvement of pain relief in the RG was evidently higher than that in the CG. The scores of SAS and SDS in the RG after intervention were evidently lower than those in the CG. GSES and ESCA scores of patients in the RG after intervention were evidently higher than those in the CG. The compliance of patients in the RG after intervention was evidently higher than that in the CG. The PSQI scores of patients in the RG after intervention were evidently better than those in the CG. The scores of SF-36 and nursing satisfaction in the RG were evidently higher than those in the CG.

Conclusion: The implementation of primary nursing intervention for elderly patients with cancer pain can effectively relieve their pain and improve their bad psychological state and medication compliance, thus improving patients' quality of life.

Keywords: Primary nursing; cancer pain in the elderly; pain degree; potential risk.

Figure 1

Comparison of GSES scores between the two groups before and after care. There was no significant difference in GSES scores between the two groups before care (P > 0.05), but the GSES scores of the RG after care were evidently higher than those of the CG. Note: *indicates compared with before nursing, P < 0.05; **indicates compared with the control group, P < 0.01.

Figure 2

Comparison of ESCA scores between the two groups before and after care. There was no significant difference in ESCA scores between the two groups before care (P > 0.05), but the ESCA scores of the RG after care were evidently higher than those of the CG. Note: *indicates compared with before nursing, P < 0.05; **indicates compared with the control group, P < 0.01.