Background Acute postoperative pain is common. Nearly 20 per cent of patients experience severe pain in the first 24 h after surgery, a figure that has remained largely unchanged in the past 30 years. This review aims to present key considerations for postoperative pain management. Methods A narrative review of postoperative pain strategies was undertaken. Searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Google Scholar databases were performed using the terms postoperative care, psychological factor, pain management, acute pain service, analgesia, acute pain and pain assessment. Results Information on service provision, preoperative planning, pain assessment, and pharmacological and non‐pharmacological strategies relevant to acute postoperative pain management in adults is presented, with a focus on enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. Conclusion Adequate perioperative pain management is integral to patient care and outcomes. Each of the biological, psychological and social dimensions of the pain experience should be considered and understood in order to provide optimum pain management in the postoperative setting.

Early identification of frailty through targeted screening can facilitate the delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and may improve outcomes for older inpatients. As several instruments are available, we aimed to investigate which is the most accurate and reliable in the Emergency Department (ED). We compared the ability of three validated, short, frailty screening instruments to identify frailty in a large University Hospital ED. Consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending ED were screened using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Identification of Seniors at Risk Tool (ISAR), and the Programme on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 item questionnaire (PRISMA-7). An independent CGA using a battery of assessments determined each patient’s frailty status. Of the 280 patients screened, complete data were available for 265, with a median age of 79 (interquartile ±9); 54% were female. The median CFS score was 4/9 (±2), ISAR 3/6 (±2), and PRISMA-7 was 3/7 (±3). Based upon the CGA, 58% were frail and the most accurate instrument for separating frail from non-frail was the PRISMA-7 (AUC 0.88; 95% CI:0.83–0.93) followed by the CFS (AUC 0.83; 95% CI:0.77–0.88), and the ISAR (AUC 0.78; 95% CI:0.71–0.84). The PRISMA-7 was statistically significantly more accurate than the ISAR (p = 0.008) but not the CFS (p = 0.15). Screening for frailty in the ED with a selection of short screening instruments, but particularly the PRISMA-7, is reliable and accurate.

No abstract

No abstract