Gender disparity in analgesic treatment of emergency department patients with acute abdominal pain

A Multicenter Evaluation of the Impact of Sex on Abdominal and Fracture Pain Care

BACKGROUND

Previous studies examining sex-based disparities in emergency department (ED) pain care have been limited to a single pain condition, a single study site, and lack rigorous control for confounders.

OBJECTIVE

A multicenter evaluation of the effect of sex on abdominal pain (AP) and fracture pain (FP) care outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A retrospective cohort review of ED visits at 5 US hospitals in January, April, July, and October 2009.

SUBJECTS

A total of 6931 patients with a final ED diagnosis of FP (n=1682) or AP (n=5249) were included.

MEASURES

The primary predictor was sex. The primary outcome was time to analgesic administration. Secondary outcomes included time to medication order, and the likelihood of receiving an analgesic and change in pain scores 360 minutes after triage: Multivariable models, clustered by study site, were conducted to adjust for race, age, comorbidities, initial pain score, ED crowding, and triage acuity.

RESULTS

On adjusted analyses, compared with men, women with AP waited longer for analgesic administration [AP women: 112 (65-187) minutes, men: 96 (52-167) minutes, P<0.001] and ordering [women: 84 (41-160) minutes, men: 71 (32-137) minutes, P<0.001], whereas women with FP did not (Administration: P=0.360; Order: P=0.133). Compared with men, women with AP were less likely to receive analgesics in the first 90 minutes (OR=0.766; 95% CI, 0.670-0.875; P<0.001), whereas women with FP were not (P=0.357).

DISCUSSION

In this multicenter study, we found that women experienced delays in analgesic administration for AP, but not for FP. Future research and interventions to decrease sex disparities in pain care should take type of pain into account.

Crowding measures associated with the quality of emergency department care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Despite the substantial body of literature on emergency department (ED) crowding, to the best of our knowledge, there is no agreement on the measure or measures that should be used to quantify crowding. The objective of this systematic review was to identify existing measures of ED crowding that have been linked to quality of care as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) quality domains (safe, effective, patient-centered, efficient, timely, and equitable).

METHODS

Six major bibliographic databases were searched from January 1980 to January 2012, and hand searches were conducted of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Observational studies (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control), quality improvement studies, quasi-experimental (e.g., before/after) studies, and randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Studies that did not provide measures of ED crowding were excluded. Studies that did not provide quantitative data on the link between crowding measures and quality of care were also excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility, completed data extraction, and assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for observational studies and a modified version of the NOS for cross-sectional studies.

RESULTS

The search identified 7,413 articles. Thirty-two articles were included in the review: six cross-sectional, one case-control, 23 cohort, and two retrospective reviews of performance improvement data. Methodologic quality was moderate, with weaknesses in the reporting of study design and methodology. Overall, 15 of the crowding measures studied had quantifiable links to quality of care. The three measures most frequently linked to quality of care were the number of patients in the waiting room, ED occupancy (percentage of overall ED beds filled), and the number of admitted patients in the ED awaiting inpatient beds. None of the articles provided data on the link between crowding measures and the IOM domains reflecting equitable and efficient care.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review provide data on the association between ED crowding measures and quality of care. Three simple crowding measures have been linked to quality of care in multiple publications.

Vital Signs Are Not Associated with Self-Reported Acute Pain Intensity in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to ascertain the association between self-reported pain intensity and vital signs in both emergency department (ED) patients and a subgroup of patients with diagnosed conditions known to produce significant pain.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of real-time, archived data from an electronic medical record system at an urban teaching hospital and regional community hospital. We included consecutive ED patients ≥16 years old who had a self-reported pain intensity ≥1 as measured during triage, from March 2005 to December 2012. The primary outcome was vital signs for self-reported pain intensity levels (mild, moderate, severe) on an 11-point verbal numerical scale. Changes in pain intensity levels were also compared to variations in vital signs. Both analyses were repeated on a subgroup of patients with diagnosed conditions recognized to produce significant pain: fracture, dislocation, or renal colic.

RESULTS

We included 153,567 patients (mean age of 48.4±19.3 years; 55.5% women) triaged with pain (median intensity of 7/10±3). Of these, 8.9% of patients had diagnosed conditions recognized to produce significant pain. From the total sample, the difference between mild and severe pain categories was 2.7 beats/minutes (95% CI: 2.4-3.0) for heart rate and 0.13 mm Hg (95% CI: -0.26-0.52) for systolic blood pressure. These differences generated small effect sizes and were not clinically significant. Results were similar for patients who experienced changes in pain categories and for those conditions recognized to produce significant pain.

CONCLUSION

Health care professionals cannot use vital signs to estimate or substantiate self-reported pain intensity levels or changes over time.

The influence of health care professional characteristics on pain management decisions

OBJECTIVE

Evidence suggests that patient characteristics such as sex, race, and age influence the pain management decisions of health care providers. Although this signifies that patient demographics may be important determinants of health care decisions, pain-related care also may be impacted by the personal characteristics of the health care practitioner. However, the extent to which health care provider characteristics affect pain management decisions is unclear, underscoring the need for further research in this area.

METHODS

A total of 154 health care providers (77 physicians, 77 dentists) viewed video vignettes of virtual human (VH) patients varying in sex, race, and age. Practitioners provided computerized ratings of VH patients' pain intensity and unpleasantness, and also reported their willingness to prescribe non-opioid and opioid analgesics for each patient. Practitioner sex, race, age, and duration of professional experience were included as predictors to determine their impact on pain management decisions.

RESULTS

When assessing and treating pain, practitioner sex, race, age, and duration of experience were all significantly associated with pain management decisions. Further, the role of these characteristics differed across VH patient sex, race, and age.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that pain assessment and treatment decisions may be impacted by the health care providers' demographic characteristics, effects which may contribute to pain management disparities. Future research is warranted to determine whether findings replicate in other health care disciplines and medical conditions, and identify other practitioner characteristics (e.g., culture) that may affect pain management decisions.

Quality indicators for the assessment and management of pain in the emergency department: a systematic review

Appropriate and timely treatment of pain are very important, particularly in the emergency department, where pain continues to be undertreated. One of the ways in which the undertreatment of pain can be mitigated is the use of defined quality benchmarks. This systematic review of the literature was performed to identify such quality indicators. The resulting 20 quality indicators may be used to improve pain assessment and management protocols in the emergency department setting.

BACKGROUND:

Evidence indicates that pain is undertreated in the emergency department (ED). The first step in improving the pain experience for ED patients is to accurately and systematically assess the actual care being provided. Identifying gaps in the assessment and treatment of pain and improving patient outcomes requires relevant, evidence-based performance measures.

OBJECTIVE:

To systematically review the literature and identify quality indicators specific to the assessment and management of pain in the ED.

METHODS:

Four major bibliographical databases were searched from January 1980 to December 2010, and relevant journals and conference proceedings were manually searched. Original research that described the development or collection of data on one or more quality indicators relevant to the assessment or management of pain in the ED was included.

RESULTS:

The search identified 18,078 citations. Twenty-three articles were included: 15 observational (cohort) studies; three before-after studies; three audits; one quality indicator development study; and one survey. Methodological quality was moderate, with weaknesses in the reporting of study design and methodology. Twenty unique indicators were identified, with the majority (16 of 20) measuring care processes. Overall, 91% (21 of 23) of the studies reported indicators for the assessment or management of presenting pain, as opposed to procedural pain. Three of the studies included children; however, none of the indicators were developed specifically for a pediatric population.

CONCLUSION:

Gaps in the existing literature include a lack of measures reflecting procedural pain, patient outcomes and the pediatric population. Future efforts should focus on developing indicators specific to these key areas.

Model determination of delayed causes of analgesics prescription in the emergency ward in arak, iran

Background

According to the reports of the World Health Organization 20% of world population suffer from pain and 33% of them suffer to some extent that they cannot live independently.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study which was conducted in the emergency department (ED) of Valiasr Hospital of Arak, Iran, in order to determine the causes of delay in prescription of analgesics and to construct a model for prediction of circumstances that aggravate oligoanalgesia. Data were collected during a period of 7 days.

Results

Totally, 952 patients participated in this study. In order to reduce their pain intensity, 392 patients (42%) were treated. Physicians and nurses recorded the intensity of pain for 66.3% and 41.37% of patients, respectively. The mean (SD) of pain intensity according to visual analogue scale (VAS) was 8.7 (1.5) which reached to 4.4 (2.3) thirty minutes after analgesics prescription. Median and mean (SD) of delay time in injection of analgesics after the physician's order were 60.0 and 45.6 (63.35) minutes, respectively. The linear regression model suggested that when the attending physician was male or intern and patient was from rural areas the delay was longer.

Conclusions

We propose further studies about analgesics administration based on medical guidelines in the shortest possible time and also to train physicians and nurses about pain assessment methods and analgesic prescription.

Is adequate pain relief and time to analgesia associated with emergency department length of stay? A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the association of adequate analgesia and time to analgesia with emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS).

SETTING AND DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of real-time archived data.

PARTICIPANTS

We included all consecutive ED patients ≥18 years with pain intensity >6 (verbal numerical scale from 0 to 10), assigned to an ED bed, and whose pain was re-evaluated less than 1 h after receiving analgesic treatment.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome was ED-LOS in patients who had adequate pain relief (AR=↓50% pain intensity) compared with those who did not have such relief (NR).

RESULTS

A total of 2033 patients (mean age 49.5 years; 51% men) met our inclusion criteria; 58.3% were discharged, and 41.7% were admitted. Among patients discharged or admitted, there was no significant difference in ED-LOS between those with AR (median (25th-75th centile): 9.6 h (6.3-14.8) and 18.2 h (11.6-25.7), respectively) and NR (median (25th-75th centile): 9.6 h (6.6-16.0) and 17.4 h (11.3-26.5), respectively). After controlling for confounding factors, rapid time to analgesia (not AR) was associated with shorter ED-LOS of discharged and admitted patients (p<0.001 and <0.05, respectively). When adjusting for confounding variables, ED-LOS is shortened by 2 h (95% CI 1.1 to 2.8) when delay to receive analgesic is <90 min compared with >90 min for discharged and by 2.3 h (95% CI 0.17 to 4.4) for admitted patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, AR was not linked with short ED-LOS. However, rapid administration of analgesia was associated with short ED-LOS.

The influence of paramedic and patient gender on the administration of analgesics in the out-of-hospital setting

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether analgesic administration in the out-of-hospital setting is influenced by the gender of the patient or the gender of the paramedic.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of patient care records included adult patients (age > 15 years) with moderate to severe pain (verbal numerical rating score 4-10) treated by paramedics between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. Data extracted included patient pain severity score, analgesia provided by paramedics, and gender of the treating paramedic. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics, χ(2) test, and logistic regression. The primary outcome measures were the effect of patient and paramedic gender on analgesic administration.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 42,051 patients, median age of 57 years (38-75); 50.4% were female and 51% were administered an analgesic agent. For the outcome of receiving any analgesia, neither patient gender nor paramedic gender was predictive (p = NS). In a multivariate model for the outcome of receiving any analgesia, patient gender, paramedic gender, and the interaction between patient and paramedic gender were all nonsignificant (p = NS). For the outcome of receiving opioid analgesia (i.e., morphine or fentanyl), male patients were at greater odds of receiving an opioid (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.29-1.79, p < 0.0001). Paramedic gender was not predictive of whether an opioid was given (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The gender of the paramedic did not appear to influence the odds of analgesic administration. Female patients were less likely to receive opioids. Paramedic gender does not explain this finding.

Anxiolytic medication as an adjunct to morphine analgesia for acute low back pain management in the emergency department: a prospective randomized trial

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, single-blinded, and randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the added benefit of promethazine administration as an anxiolytic adjunct to morphine analgesia in reducing acute low back pain (LBP) compared with morphine alone.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Acute LBP is one of the most common reasons for emergency department (ED) visits. The optimal analgesic treatment for acute LBP remains controversial. Anxiety relief has been shown to improve pain management in the ED setting. We hypothesized that administration of the antihistamine promethazine as an anxiolytic adjunct to morphine analgesia will improve LBP management compared with morphine alone.

METHODS

Fifty-nine adults, who were treated in our ED for severe acute LBP (visual analogue scale ≥ 70 mm), were randomly enrolled in the study. Thirty patients received slow infusion of intravenous (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg in normal saline and 29 patients received an analgesic regimen of IV morphine 0.1 mg/kg with promethazine 25 mg administered similarly. Pain and anxiety levels were subjectively assessed by the patients on a 100-mm visual analogue scale before and after treatment. Adverse event related to analgesia were recorded in real time.

RESULTS

After analgesia administration patients' pain rating decreased by 43 mm in the morphine group and by 39 mm in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.26). Similarly, patients' anxiety decreased by 19 mm in the morphine group and by 13 mm in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.37). The average ED stay was 78 minutes longer in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.01), due to the strong sedative effect of promethazine. Patients' satisfaction and the rate of adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

IV administration of morphine-promethazine regimen for pain and anxiety relief associated with acute LBP showed no advantage compared with IV morphine alone and significantly lengthened the overall ED stay. Thus, we think that promethazine has no place in acute LBP management in the adult ED setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Association of race and ethnicity with management of abdominal pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To determine if race/ethnicity-based differences exist in the management of pediatric abdominal pain in emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey regarding 2298 visits by patients ≤ 21 years old who presented to EDs with abdominal pain. Main outcomes were documentation of pain score and receipt of any analgesics, analgesics for severe pain (defined as ≥ 7 on a 10-point scale), and narcotic analgesics. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic tests obtained, length of stay (LOS), 72-hour return visits, and admission.

RESULTS

Of patient visits, 70.1% were female, 52.6% were from non-Hispanic white, 23.5% were from non-Hispanic black, 20.6% were from Hispanic, and 3.3% were from "other" racial/ethnic groups; patients' mean age was 14.5 years. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for confounders revealed that non-Hispanic black patients were less likely to receive any analgesic (odds ratio [OR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.87) or a narcotic analgesic (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18-0.81) than non-Hispanic white patients (referent group). This finding was also true for non-Hispanic black and "other" race/ethnicity patients with severe pain (ORs [95% CI]: 0.43 [0.22-0.87] and 0.02 [0.00-0.19], respectively). Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have a prolonged LOS than non-Hispanic white patients (ORs [95% CI]: 1.68 [1.13-2.51] and 1.64 [1.09-2.47], respectively). No significant race/ethnicity-based disparities were identified in documentation of pain score, use of diagnostic procedures, 72-hour return visits, or hospital admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Race/ethnicity-based disparities exist in ED analgesic use and LOS for pediatric abdominal pain. Recognizing these disparities may help investigators eliminate inequalities in care.

The impact of patients' gender, race, and age on health care professionals' pain management decisions: an online survey using virtual human technology

BACKGROUND

Previous literature indicates that biases exist in pain ratings. Healthcare professionals have been found to use patient demographic cues such as sex, race, and age when making decisions about pain treatment. However, there has been little research comparing healthcare professionals' (i.e., physicians and nurses) pain decision policies based on patient demographic cues.

METHODS

The current study used virtual human technology to examine the impact of patients' sex, race, and age on healthcare professionals' pain ratings. One hundred and ninety-three healthcare professionals (nurses and physicians) participated in this online study.

RESULTS

Healthcare professionals assessed virtual human patients who were male and African American to be experiencing greater pain intensity and were more willing to administer opioid analgesics to them than to their demographic counterparts. Similarly, nurses were more willing to administer opioids make treatment decisions than physicians. There was also a significant virtual human-sex by healthcare professional interaction for pain assessment and treatment decisions. The sex difference (male>female) was greater for nurses than physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Results replicated findings of previous studies using virtual human patients to assess the effect of sex, race, and age in pain decision-making. In addition, healthcare professionals' pain ratings differed depending on healthcare profession. Nurses were more likely to rate pain higher and be more willing to administer opioid analgesics than were physicians. Healthcare professionals rated male and African American virtual human patients as having higher pain in most pain assessment and treatment domains compared to their demographic counterparts. Similarly the virtual human-sex difference ratings were more pronounced for nurses than physicians. Given the large number of patients seen throughout the healthcare professionals' careers, these pain practice biases have important public health implications. This study suggests attention to the influence of patient demographic cues in pain management education is needed.

Shared decision-making in the selection of outpatient analgesics for older individuals in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relationship between older adults' perceptions of shared decision-making in the selection of an analgesic to take at home for acute musculoskeletal pain and (1) patient satisfaction with the analgesic and (2) changes in pain scores at 1 week.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Single academic emergency department.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 65 and older with acute musculoskeletal pain.

MEASUREMENTS

Two components of shared decision-making were assessed: information provided to the patient about the medication choice and patient participation in the selection of the analgesic. Optimal satisfaction with the analgesic was defined as being "a lot" satisfied. Pain scores were assessed in the ED and at 1 week using a 0-to-10 scale.

RESULTS

Of 159 individuals reached by telephone, 111 met all eligibility criteria and completed the survey. Fifty-two percent of participants reported receiving information about pain medication options, and 31% reported participating in analgesic selection. Participants who received information were more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the pain medication than those who did not (67% vs 34%; P < .001). Participants who participated in the decision were also more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the analgesic (71% vs 43%; P = .008) and had a greater average decrease in pain score (4.1 vs 2.9; P = .05). After adjusting for measured confounders, participants who reported receiving information remained more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the analgesic (63% vs 38%; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making in analgesic selection for older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain may improve outcomes.

Older US emergency department patients are less likely to receive pain medication than younger patients: results from a national survey

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with pain are less likely to receive pain medication than younger adults.

METHODS

Pain-related visits to US EDs were identified with reason-for-visit codes from 7 years (2003 to 2009) of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The primary outcome was the administration of an analgesic. The percentage of patients receiving analgesics in 4 age groups was adjusted for measured covariates, including pain severity.

RESULTS

Pain-related visits accounted for 88,031 (46.9%) ED visits by patients aged 18 years or older during the 7-year period. There were 7,585 pain-related ED visits by patients aged 75 years or older, representing an estimated 3.65 million US ED visits annually. In comparing survey-weighted unadjusted estimates, pain-related visits by patients aged 75 years or older were less likely than visits by patients aged 35 to 54 years to result in administration of an analgesic (49% versus 68.3%) or an opioid (34.8% versus 49.3%). Absolute differences in rates of analgesic and opioid administration persisted after adjustment for sex, race/ethnicity, pain severity, and other factors and multiple imputation of missing pain severity data, with visits by patients aged 75 years and older being 19.6% (95% confidence interval 17.8% to 21.4%) less likely than visits by patients aged 35 to 54 years to receive an analgesic and 14.6% (95% confidence interval 12.8% to 16.4%) less likely to receive an opioid.

CONCLUSION

Patients aged 75 years and older with pain-related ED visits are less likely to receive pain medication than patients aged 35 to 54 years.

Inequality in analgesic prescription in Spain. A gender development issue

OBJECTIVES

It is well known that sex differences in analgesic prescription are not merely the logical result of greater prevalence of pain in women, since this therapeutic variability is related to factors such as educational level or social class. This study aims to analyse the relationship between analgesic prescription and gender development in different regions of Spain.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of sex-differences in analgesic prescription according to the gender development of the regions studied. Analgesic prescription, pain and demographic variables were obtained from the Spanish Health Interview Survey in 2006. Gender development was measured with the Gender Development Index (GDI). A logistic regression analysis was conducted to compare analgesic prescription by sex in regions with a GDI above or below the Spanish average.

RESULTS

Once adjusted by pain, age and social class, women were more likely to be prescribed analgesics than men, odds ratio (OR) = 1.74 (1.59-1.91), as residents in regions with a lower GDI compared with those in region with a higher GDI: ORWomen = 1.26 (1.12-1.42), ORMen = 1.30 (1.13-1.50). Women experiencing pain in regions with a lower GDI were more likely than men to be treated by a general practitioner rather than by a specialist, OR = 1.32 (1.04-1.67), irrespective of age and social class.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender bias may be one of the pathways by which inequalities in analgesic treatment adversely affect women's health. Moreover, research into the adequacy of analgesic treatment and the possible medicalisation of women should consider contextual factors, such as gender development.

More educated emergency department patients are less likely to receive opioids for acute pain

Inadequate treatment of pain in United States emergency departments (EDs) is common, in part because of the limited and idiosyncratic use of opioids by emergency providers. This study sought to determine the relationship between patient socioeconomic characteristics and the likelihood that they would receive opioids during a pain-related ED visit. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of ED data obtained as part of a multicenter study of outcomes after minor motor vehicle collision (MVC). Study patients were non-Hispanic white patients between the ages of 18 and 65 years who were evaluated and discharged home from 1 of 8 EDs in 4 states. Socioeconomic characteristics include educational attainment and income. Of 690 enrolled patients, the majority had moderate or severe pain (80%). Patients with higher education attainment had lower levels of pain, pain catastrophizing, perceived life threat, and distress. More educated patients were also less likely to receive opioids during their ED visit. Opioids were given to 54% of patients who did not complete high school vs 10% of patients with post-college education (χ(2) test P<.001). Differences in the frequency of opioid administration between patients with the lowest educational attainment (39%, 95% confidence interval 22% to 60%) and highest educational attainment (13%, 95% confidence interval 7% to 23%) remained after adjustment for age, sex, income, and pain severity (P=.01). In this sample of post-MVC ED patients, more educated patients were less likely to receive opioids. Further study is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings and to determine the reason for the difference.

Time to take stock: a meta-analysis and systematic review of analgesic treatment disparities for pain in the United States

BACKGROUND

The recent Institute of Medicine Report assessing the state of pain care in the United States acknowledged the lack of consistent data to describe the nature and magnitude of unrelieved pain and identify subpopulations with disproportionate burdens.

OBJECTIVES

We synthesized 20 years of cumulative evidence on racial/ethnic disparities in analgesic treatment for pain in the United States. Evidence was examined for the 1) magnitude of association between race/ethnicity and analgesic treatment; 2) subgroups at an increased risk; and 3) the effect of moderators (pain type, setting, study quality, and data collection period) on this association.

METHODS

United States studies with at least one explicit aim or analysis comparing analgesic treatment for pain between Whites and a minority group were included (SciVerse Scopus database, 1989-2011).

RESULTS

Blacks/African Americans experienced both a higher number and magnitude of disparities than any other group in the analyses. Opioid treatment disparities were ameliorated for Hispanics/Latinos for "traumatic/surgical" pain (P = 0.293) but remained for "non-traumatic/nonsurgical" pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.77, P = 0.000). For Blacks/African Americans, opioid prescription disparities were present for both types of pain and were starker for "non-traumatic/nonsurgical" pain (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.59-0.75, P = 0.000). In subanalyses, opioid treatment disparities for Blacks/African Americans remained consistent across pain types, settings, study quality, and data collection periods.

CONCLUSION

Our study quantifies the magnitude of analgesic treatment disparities in subgroups of minorities. The size of the difference was sufficiently large to raise not only normative but quality and safety concerns. The treatment gap does not appear to be closing with time or existing policy initiatives. A concerted strategy is needed to reduce pain care disparities within the larger quality of care initiatives.

A research agenda to assure equity during periods of emergency department crowding

The effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on equitable care is the least studied of the domains of quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Inequities in access and treatment throughout the health care system are well documented in all fields of medicine. While there is little evidence demonstrating that inequity is worsened by crowding, theory and evidence from social science disciplines, as well as known barriers to care for vulnerable populations, would suggest that crowding will worsen inequities. To design successful interventions, however, it is important to first understand how crowding can result in disparities and base interventions on these mechanisms. A research agenda is proposed to understand mechanisms that may threaten equity during periods of crowding and design and test potential interventions that may ensure the equitable aspect of quality of care.

Is there a color line in death? An examination of end-of-life care in the African American community

Although the goals of end-of-life care and hospice are to mitigate suffering and improve quality of life for patients with terminal illnesses, they remain underutilized by a significant number of African Americans. While sociocultural issues play a role in the underutilization of these resources among African Americans, other confounding factors affect the ability of African Americans to adequately access quality care at the end of life. Here, the authors examine the various barriers preventing increased use of hospice care and palliative therapy among African Americans. A particular focus of this examination will revolve around suggestions for increasing the use of end-of-life care among African Americans in the future.

The quality of emergency department pain care for older adult patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there are differences in emergency department (ED) pain assessment and treatment for older and younger adults.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort.

SETTING

Urban, academic tertiary care ED during July and December 2005.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with conditions warranting ED pain care.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, Charlson comorbidity score, number of prior medications, sex, race and ethnicity, triage severity, degree of pain, treating clinician, and final ED diagnosis. Pain care process measures were pain assessment and treatment and time of activities.

RESULTS

One thousand thirty-one ED visits met inclusion criteria; 92% of these had a documented pain assessment. Of those reporting pain, 41% had follow-up pain assessments, and 59% received analgesic medication (58% of these as opioids, 24% as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)). In adjusted analyses, there were no differences according to age in pain assessment and receiving any analgesic. Older patients (65-84) were less likely than younger patients (18-64) to receive opioid analgesics for moderate to severe (odds ratio (OR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.22-0.88) and were more likely to more likely to receive NSAIDs for mild pain (OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 0.97-14.24). Older adults had a lower reduction of initial to final recorded pain scores (P = .002).

CONCLUSION

There appear to be differences in acute ED pain care for older and younger adults. Lower overall reduction of pain scores and less opioid use for the treatment of painful conditions in older patients highlight disparities of concern. Future studies should determine whether these differences represent inadequate ED pain care.

Gender, age and ethnic aspects of analgesia in acute abdominal pain: is analgesia even across the groups?

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have shown differences in pain perception between men and women, which may affect pain management strategies.

AIM

Our primary aim was to investigate whether there are gender-based differences in pain management in patients admitted to our emergency department with acute, non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). Our secondary aim was to evaluate if other factors influence administration of analgesia for patients admitted with NSAP.

METHODS

From June 2007 to June 2008, we carried out a retrospective, gender-based, frequency-matched control study with 150 patients (75 consecutive men and 75 women) who presented with NSAP at our emergency department. Pain was documented using a numerical rating scale ('0' no pain, '10' most severe pain). A multinomial regression model was used to assess factors that might influence pain management.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was seen between men and women with respect to pain management (P= 0.085). Younger patients were, however, more likely to receive weaker (P= 0.011) and fewer analgesics (P < 0.001). Patients with previous abdominal surgery (P= 0.012), known chronic pain conditions (P= 0.029) or relevant comorbidities (P= 0.048) received stronger analgesia. Nationality (P= 0.244), employment status (P= 0.988), time of admission (P= 0.487) and known psychiatric illness (P= 0.579) did not influence pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant gender-dependent differences in pain management were observed. However, younger patients received less potent analgesic treatment. There is no reason for certain groups to receive suboptimal treatment, and greater efforts should be made to offer consistent treatment to all patients.

Patient Weight as a Predictor of Pain Response to Morphine in the Emergency Department

Study Objectives: There is little evidence that patient weight is associated with pain response to morphine in the emergency department (ED). The primary outcome of this study is to identify demographic variables including patient weight that are associated with an adequate pain reduction after the first dose of morphine. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients with severe nontraumatic abdominal pain receiving intravenous morphine was conducted in our ED over a 3-month time period. Pain score, using an 11-point verbal numerical pain scale (0-10), was measured before and after each dose of morphine. Adequate response was defined as a ≥ 4-point reduction from baseline pain score. Results: A total of 105 patients were included in the analysis. Univariate logistic regression analyses stratified by dose (2 or 4 mg) showed that patient weight was not predictive of adequate pain response after the first dose of morphine (2 mg: odds ratio = 1; 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.03; P = .88; 4 mg: odds ratio = 1; 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.03; P = .86). Conclusions: Patient weight may not predict pain response to morphine in the ED. Dosing strategies based on patient weight may not be necessary in this patient population.

Paramedic assessment of pain in the cognitively impaired adult patient

Background

Paramedics are often a first point of contact for people experiencing pain in the community. Wherever possible the patient's self report of pain should be sought to guide the assessment and management of this complaint. Communication difficulty or disability such as cognitive impairment associated with dementia may limit the patient's ability to report their pain experience, and this has the potential to affect the quality of care. The primary objective of this study was to systematically locate evidence relating to the use of pain assessment tools that have been validated for use with cognitively impaired adults and to identify those that have been recommended for use by paramedics.

Methods

A systematic search of health databases for evidence relating to the use of pain assessment tools that have been validated for use with cognitively impaired adults was undertaken using specific search criteria. An extended search included position statements and clinical practice guidelines developed by health agencies to identify evidence-based recommendations regarding pain assessment in older adults.

Results

Two systematic reviews met study inclusion criteria. Weaknesses in tools evaluated by these studies limited their application in assessing pain in the population of interest. Only one tool was designed to assess pain in acute care settings. No tools were located that are designed for paramedic use.

Conclusion

The reviews of pain assessment tools found that the majority were developed to assess chronic pain in aged care, hospital or hospice settings. An analysis of the characteristics of these pain assessment tools identified attributes that may limit their use in paramedic practice. One tool - the Abbey Pain Scale - may have application in paramedic assessment of pain, but clinical evaluation is required to validate this tool in the paramedic practice setting. Further research is recommended to evaluate the Abbey Pain Scale and to evaluate the effectiveness of paramedic pain management practice in older adults to ensure that the care of all patients is unaffected by age or disability.

The association between emergency department crowding and analgesia administration in acute abdominal pain patients

OBJECTIVES

The authors assessed the effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on the nontreatment and delay in treatment for analgesia in patients who had acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of prospectively enrolled nonpregnant adult patients presenting to an urban teaching ED with abdominal pain during a 9-month period. Each patient had four validated crowding measures assigned at triage. Main outcomes were the administration of and delays in time to analgesia. A delay was defined as waiting more than 1 hour for analgesia. Relative risk (RR) regression was used to test the effects of crowding on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 976 abdominal pain patients (mean [+/-standard deviation] age = 41 [+/-16.6] years; 65% female, 62% black) were enrolled, of whom 649 (67%) received any analgesia. Of those treated, 457 (70%) experienced a delay in analgesia from triage, and 320 (49%) experienced a delay in analgesia after room placement. After adjusting for possible confounders of the ED administration of analgesia (age, sex, race, triage class, severe pain, final diagnosis of either abdominal pain not otherwise specified or gastroenteritis), increasing delays in time to analgesia from triage were independently associated with all four crowding measures, comparing the lowest to the highest quartile of crowding (total patient-care hours RR = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.32 to 1.80; occupancy rate RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.91; inpatient number RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.36 to 1.81; and waiting room number RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.77). Crowding measures were not associated with the failure to treat with analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department crowding is associated with delays in analgesic treatment from the time of triage in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.

Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings

Sex-related influences on pain and analgesia have become a topic of tremendous scientific and clinical interest, especially in the last 10 to 15 years. Members of our research group published reviews of this literature more than a decade ago, and the intervening time period has witnessed robust growth in research regarding sex, gender, and pain. Therefore, it seems timely to revisit this literature. Abundant evidence from recent epidemiologic studies clearly demonstrates that women are at substantially greater risk for many clinical pain conditions, and there is some suggestion that postoperative and procedural pain may be more severe among women than men. Consistent with our previous reviews, current human findings regarding sex differences in experimental pain indicate greater pain sensitivity among females compared with males for most pain modalities, including more recently implemented clinically relevant pain models such as temporal summation of pain and intramuscular injection of algesic substances. The evidence regarding sex differences in laboratory measures of endogenous pain modulation is mixed, as are findings from studies using functional brain imaging to ascertain sex differences in pain-related cerebral activation. Also inconsistent are findings regarding sex differences in responses to pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain treatments. The article concludes with a discussion of potential biopsychosocial mechanisms that may underlie sex differences in pain, and considerations for future research are discussed.

PERSPECTIVE

This article reviews the recent literature regarding sex, gender, and pain. The growing body of evidence that has accumulated in the past 10 to 15 years continues to indicate substantial sex differences in clinical and experimental pain responses, and some evidence suggests that pain treatment responses may differ for women versus men.

Outcomes after intravenous opioids in emergency patients: a prospective cohort analysis

OBJECTIVES

Pain management continues to be suboptimal in emergency departments (EDs). Several studies have documented failures in the processes of care, such as whether opioid analgesics were given. The objectives of this study were to measure the outcomes following administration of intravenous (IV) opioids and to identify clinical factors that may predict poor analgesic outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, emergency patients were enrolled if they were prescribed IV morphine or hydromorphone (the most commonly used IV opioids in the study hospital) as their initial analgesic. Patients were surveyed at the time of opioid administration and 1 to 2 hours after the initial opioid dosage. They scored their pain using a verbal 0-10 pain scale. The following binary analgesic variables were primarily used to identify patients with poor analgesic outcomes: 1) a pain score reduction of less than 50%, 2) a postanalgesic pain score of 7 or greater (using the 0-10 numeric rating scale), and 3) the development of opioid-related side effects. Logistic regression analyses were used to study the effects of demographic, clinical, and treatment covariates on the outcome variables.

RESULTS

A total of 2,414 were approached for enrollment, of whom 1,312 were ineligible (658 were identified more than 2 hours after IV opioid was administered and 341 received another analgesic before or with the IV opioid) and 369 declined to consent. A total of 691 patients with a median baseline pain score of 9 were included in the final analyses. Following treatment, 57% of the cohort failed to achieve a 50% pain score reduction, 36% had a pain score of 7 or greater, 48% wanted additional analgesics, and 23% developed opioid-related side effects. In the logistic regression analyses, the factors associated with poor analgesia (both <50% pain score reduction and postanalgesic pain score of >or=7) were the use of long-acting opioids at home, administration of additional analgesics, provider concern for drug-seeking behavior, and older age. An initial pain score of 10 was also strongly associated with a postanalgesic pain score of >or=7. African American patients who were not taking opioids at home were less likely to achieve a 50% pain score reduction than other patients, despite receiving similar initial and total equianalgesic dosages. None of the variables we assessed were significantly associated with the development of opioid-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor analgesic outcomes were common in this cohort of ED patients prescribed IV opioids. Patients taking long-acting opioids, those thought to be drug-seeking, older patients, those with an initial pain score of 10, and possibly African American patients are at especially high risk of poor analgesia following IV opioid administration.