Comparison of predicted incidence of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting by medical staff and patients with its actual incidence
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-2907.2019.15.002
- VernacularTitle:医护人员和患者预估化疗所致恶心呕吐与实际发生情况的对比
- Author:
Weicai SU
1
;
Ruixian HE
;
Yanxin ZHANG
;
Yan WANG
;
Shuxiang ZHANG
;
Zhihong MEI
Author Information
1. 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院内科 100021
- Keywords:
Nausea;
Vomiting;
Drug therapy;
Medical staff;
Neoplasms patients
- From:
Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
2019;25(15):1853-1857
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective? To compare predicted incidence of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by doctors, nurses and patients with its actual incidence. Methods? We used the prospective paired design to select 320 patients with the induced vomiting plan of medicine department at Peking Union Medical College Cancer Hospital by convenience sampling, and we allocated 72 doctors and 48 responsibility nurses for patients. The predicted chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting scale was filled in by doctors, nurses and patients as required to understand the incidence of CINV predicted by them. After patients completed their chemotherapy, the Chinese version of MASCC antiemesis tool (MAT) was filled out by nurses to investigate the actual incidence of CINV. Results? The paired chi-square test showed that the incidence of acute and delayed CINV were 38.75% and 61.25% respectively. There was no statistical difference between the incidence of acute CINV predicted by doctors, nurses as well as patients and the actual incidence (P＞0.05). There was also no statistical difference between the incidence of delayed CINV predicted by nurses and the actual incidence (P＞0.05). Doctors and patients all underestimated the incidence of delayed CINV with a statistical difference (P＜0.05). The consistency between the incidence of acute as well as delayed CINV predicted by doctors, nurses, patients and the actual incidence was poor with Kappa value ranging from 0.02 to 0.34. A total of 54.93% to 57.77% of doctors and nurses predicted that CINV could be controlled well lower than that (about 70%) of patients with statistical differences (P＜0.05). Conclusions? There is still much improvement space for control of delayed CINV. Medical staff should take effective measures to improve the level of estimate and the level of CINV symptom management, and to improve the quality of life among patients.
