Implementation and evaluation of a pain management core competency education program for surgical nurses.

The evaluation compared nurses and patient records before and after teaching, and the paper does not describe random allocation or a concurrent control group, so other ward changes could have influenced the results. Only 107 of the 135 nurses who completed the pre-test completed the post-test, although the paper reported no significant difference in nurse demographics between the two groups. Pain scores and nursing behaviours came from medical and nursing documentation, so the records may not show all assessments or care that actually happened. Nurses' pain practices were followed for only one month after the intervention, and long-term effects are unknown. Student nurses, advanced training nurses, and nurses on vacation or outside training were excluded, and only at least 10% of nurses in each department were required to attend the initial sessions. Patient care also depends on physicians and other clinicians, but their practices were not measured. The two patient groups differed in body mass index, 23.1 kg/m2 before and 22.3 kg/m2 after, so baseline differences may have influenced pain scores. The nurses' post-test pain knowledge score remained below the 75% passing score, so the program did not bring knowledge to the intended competency level.

The education project was supported by the IASP Developing Countries Project: Initiative for Improving Pain Education. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Do not conclude that the 8-hour didactic session alone caused the lower pain scores or better documentation. The nurses also received interactive teaching, case vignettes, a supplementary book, online video and WeChat support, expert advice, a train-the-trainer model, and a ward pain protocol, and the study had no concurrent control group, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.