A prospective blinded study on emergency pain assessment and therapy

The Effect of the Consent Process on Patient Satisfaction With Pain Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We aim to determine whether the timing and context of informed consent affects the subjective outcome of patient satisfaction with pain management.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in a single emergency department (ED). Patients aged 18 years or older with a triage pain score of greater than or equal to 4 provided consent to participate in a pain management study. They were randomized to consent in the ED or at follow-up. All patients were followed up at 48 hours post-ED discharge. Patients who consented at follow-up were unaware of the study until cold called. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with pain management. Secondary analyses examined effects on follow-up and participation rates. Variables associated with patients' being very satisfied were determined with multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Outcome data were obtained on 655 of 825 patients enrolled (79.4%). Patients who provided consent at follow-up were less likely to be very satisfied compared with those who consented in the ED (difference in proportions 11.5%; 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 19.4). Follow-up and participation rates did not differ between the groups. Patients who received pain advice and adequate analgesia (both as defined in this study) were more likely to be very satisfied (odds ratio 5.18, 95% confidence interval 2.82 to 9.52; and odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.22, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The timing and context of informed consent significantly affect the subjective outcome of patient satisfaction, and this should be considered during study design. Clinicians should strive to provide pain advice and adequate analgesia to maximize their patients' satisfaction.

Is There Gender Discrimination in Acute Renal Colic Pain Management? A Retrospective Analysis in an Emergency Department Setting

BACKGROUND

Pain is a widespread problem, affecting both men and women; studies have found that women in the emergency department receive analgesic medication and opioids less often compared with men.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to examine the administration and management of analgesics by the medical/paramedical staff in relation to the patients' gender, and thereby to examine the extent of gender discrimination in treating pain.

DESIGN

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study that included 824 patients.

SETTINGS

Emergency department of tertiary hospital in Israel.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

The patients stratified by gender to compare pain treatments and waiting times between men and women in renal colic complaint.

METHODS

As an acute pain model, we used renal colic with a nephrolithiasis diagnosis confirmed by imaging. We recorded pain level by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores and number of VAS examinations. Time intervals were calculated between admissions to different stations in the emergency department. We recorded the number of analgesic drugs administered, type of drugs prescribed, and drug class (opioids or others).

RESULTS

A total of 824 patients (414 women and 410 men) participated. There were no significant differences in age, ethnicity, and laboratory findings. VAS assessments were higher in men than in women (6.43 versus 5.90, p = .001, respectively). More men than women received analgesics (68.8% versus 62.1%, p = .04, respectively) and opioids were prescribed more often for men than for women (48.3 versus 35.7%, p = .001). The number of drugs prescribed per patient was also higher in men compared with women (1.06 versus 0.93, p = .03). A significant difference was found in waiting time length from admission to medical examination between non-Jewish women and Jewish women.

CONCLUSIONS

We found differences in pain management between genders, which could be interpreted as gender discrimination. Yet these differences could also be attributed to other factors not based on gender discrimination but rather on gender differences.

Quality improvement activity for improving pain management in acute extremity injuries in the emergency department

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

A week of pain in the emergency department

Background

Pain is a common complaint in patients attending the emergency department (ED), and historically, it is under-assessed and undertreated. Previous research is heterogeneous and does not well describe pain in EDs over time. Our aim was to describe pain in a UK ED using a sample that included every adult attendance over the course of 1 week.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed every adult attendance (N = 1872) over 1 week to the ED of a large English NHS District General Hospital. We noted the initial pain score and, if the initial score was ≥5, the final recorded pain score. We categorised attendances as 'illness' or 'injury'.

Results

In all, 62.1% of patients had a pain score recorded, of whom 50.7% had a pain score of zero. Median pain score was 6/10 in patients with pain; 58% had a second score recorded. More patients with illness than injury had a second score recorded. Most patients had an improvement in their pain; however, around one-third had no change or worse pain at the end of their ED stay.

Conclusion

We have defined the incidence, severity and change in pain in an ED over 1 week. This information will underpin the design of future studies aimed at improving patient care in this important area of emergency medicine practice.

A Comparison of Ketoprofen and Diclofenac for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Relief: a Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and adverse effects of Ketoprofen and Diclofenac in the treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain.

Methods

In a prospective randomised clinical trial, patients admitted to an emergency department with acute musculoskeletal injuries requiring intramuscular (IM) injection for pain treatment were enrolled. The target study patients were Chinese adults who suffered from any musculoskeletal injuries of less than 12 hours. They received either 100 mg of Ketoprofen or 75 mg of Diclofenac. Pain was assessed by a 10-point visual analog score (VAS) and evaluations were performed at 30-minute intervals from treatment. Rescue analgesic was given if insufficient analgesia was achieved by one hour. The outcomes and the adverse effects were recorded.

Results

We recruited 77 cases in the Diclofenac group and 74 cases in the Ketoprofen group. The demographic data with regards to age, sex and patterns of injury were comparable in both groups. Following the administration of treatment, both groups showed highly statistically significant (P<0.001) reduction in pain level at 30-minute and 60-minute intervals. Comparing the mean decrease of pain level, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at 30-minute interval (P=0.6) and 60-minute interval (P=0.5). In each group, there was one patient experiencing skin rash after treatment. Four patients in the Ketoprofen group and one in Diclofenac group required rescue medicine. With respect to the number of admission following treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

Ketoprofen and Diclofenac are equally effective and safe in the treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain in Hong Kong Chinese population.

Pain Management in the Emergency Department

Objectives

To determine the waiting time for administration of analgesia to patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with traumatic pain, and to determine how the severity of pain affects the patient's perception of pain and the treatment they receive.

Methods

Consecutive patients aged 18–65 years presenting to the ED during the 2-week study period with complaint of pain secondary to trauma were prospectively recruited. The numeric rating scale (NRS) was used to indicate the level of pain experienced by the patients. They were interviewed using a structured questionnaire and a chart review was also done after the patients had completed their ED visit.

Results

The mean time to analgesia was 77.6 min (95% CI = 63.2–92.0 min). Patients requesting analgesia at triage had a median pain score of 7 (range 0–10) while those who declined had a median pain score of 5 (range 0–10) (p = 0.002, Mann-Whitney U-test). The severity of the injuries sustained did not affect the patient's perception of their pain nor their preference for early analgesia. Indian patients had a significantly higher median pain score (p = 0.048).

Conclusion

Time to delivery of analgesia fell short of our patients' expectations. Assessing pain using the NRS is useful and should be incorporated as the ‘fifth’ vital sign. Process-improvement, healthcare workers and patient education regarding pain management are needed. Patients with a pain score of 7 or more should be offered analgesia at triage. Those with a pain score of 6 or less should still be given analgesia at triage if they request it.

Emergency Department Triage Nurse Initiated Pain Management

Objectives

1) To determine the time difference to analgesia administration for patients with painful limb conditions using an emergency triage nurse initiated pain management protocol versus analgesia administration by emergency doctors after consultation. 2) To determine the frequency of adverse events following such a protocol implementation.

Methods

For emergency department patients with isolated limb injury or inflammation, a triage nurse initiated pain management policy was implemented in 2004. The protocol did not require the triage nurse to consult a physician. The triage nurse would record the chief complaint, past medical history, allergy, medication, vital signs, and pain severity using a combination of 0 to 10 numerical and face pain scales. Unless contraindicated, the triage nurse would offer intramuscular ketorolac to patients with pain score ≥5. Medical charts of patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were reviewed from 1 to 30 September 2004.

Results

Two hundred seventy-three patients were reviewed, of whom 73.3% were men and the overall mean age was 40.1 years (standard deviation SD 19.5). Two hundred and nine patients (76.6%) had pain score recorded at triage, and the median was 6. One hundred and five patients (38.5%) received analgesia, of which 69 were given by triage nurses and 36 by physicians. The mean time interval for analgesia given by triage nurse was 2.5 minutes (SD 8.9) and that for physician was significantly longer (p<0.0001) at 68.2 minutes (SD 59.5). There was no adverse drug reaction observed in patients who received intramuscular ketorolac given by triage nurses.

Conclusion

The time interval for pain relief of emergency department patients with painful limb conditions was reduced when the triage nurse initiated pain management.

Better safe than sorry? Frequent attendance in a hospital emergency department: an exploratory study

Introduction

Pain accounts for the majority of attendances to the Emergency Department (ED), with insufficient alleviation of symptoms resulting in repeated attendance. People who frequently attend the ED are typically considered to be psychologically and socially vulnerable in addition to experiencing health difficulties. This service development study was commissioned to identify the defining characteristics and unmet needs of frequent attenders (FAs) in a UK acute district general hospital ED, with a view to developing strategies to meet the needs of this group.

Methods

A mixed-methods multi-pronged exploratory approach was used, involving staff interviews, focus groups, business data and case note analysis.

Results

Findings reflect an absence of a coherent approach to meeting the needs of FAs in the ED, especially those experiencing pain. FAs to this ED tend to be vulnerable, complex and report significant worry and anxiety. Elevated anxiety on the part of the patient may be contributing to a 'better safe than sorry' culture within the ED and is reported to bear some influence on the clinical decision-making process.

Discussion

It is recommended that a systemic approach is taken to improve the quality and accessibility of individualised care plans, provision of patient education, psychological care and implementation of policies and procedures. Change on an organisational level is likely to improve working culture, staff satisfaction and staff relationships with this vulnerable group of patients. A structured care pathway and supportive changes are likely to lead to economic benefits. Further research should build on findings to implement and test the efficacy of these interventions.

Peer Review and Feedback Can Modify Pain Treatment Patterns for Emergency Department Patients With Fractures

Consecutive fracture patients presenting to an adult (AED) or pediatric trauma center (PED) or a community teaching hospital (CED) were reviewed for treatment. Physicians received individual and group feedback. Data were dichotomized by age, gender, race and insurance status. Logistic regression analysis modeled variables approaching statistical significance. A total of 1454 patients participated in the study. The aggregate initial treatment rate was 54%, with no subgroup differences. Significant improvements were seen in all sites/subgroups; the final aggregate treatment rate was 84% (P < .001). PED and CED patients were less likely to receive treatment than AED patients (odds ratios = 0.49, 0.68). After feedback, whites were treated more often than were non-whites (84% vs 71%, P < .0001); CED alone did not show this pattern (odds ratios = AED 4.14, PED 2.67, CED1.28). Patients at all sites received improved pain treatment in association with directed feedback. Race and treatment site were significant factors.

The Decline in Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen Prescriptions in Emergency Departments in the Veterans Health Administration Between 2009 to 2015

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to measure national prescribing patterns for hydrocodone/acetaminophen among veterans seeking emergency medical care, and to see if patterns have changed since this medication became a Schedule II controlled substance.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of emergency department (ED) visits within the Veterans Health Administration (VA) between January 2009 and June 2015. We looked at demographics, comorbidities, utilization measures, diagnoses, and prescriptions.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,709,545 individuals participated in 6,270,742 ED visits and received 471,221 prescriptions for hydrocodone/acetaminophen (7.5% of all visits). The most common diagnosis associated with a prescription was back pain. Prescriptions peaked at 80,776 in 2011 (8.7% of visits), and declined to 35,031 (5.6%) during the first half of 2015 (r=-0.99, p<0.001). The percentage of hydrocodone/acetaminophen prescriptions limited to 12 pills increased from 22% (13,949) in 2009 to 31% (11,026) in the first half of 2015. A prescription was more likely written for patients with a pain score≥7 (OR 3.199, CI [3.192-3.205]), a musculoskeletal (OR 1.622, CI [1.615-1.630]) or soft tissue (OR 1.656, CI [1.649-1.664]) diagnosis, and those below the first quartile for total ED visits (OR 1.282, CI [1.271-1.293]) and total outpatient ICD 9 codes (OR 1.843, CI [1.833-1.853]).

CONCLUSION

Hydrocodone/acetaminophen is the most frequently prescribed ED medication in the VA. The rate of prescribing has decreased since 2011, with the rate of decline remaining unchanged after it was classified as a Schedule II controlled substance. The proportion of prescriptions falling within designated guidelines has increased but is not at goal.

Survey of pain etiology, management practices and patient satisfaction in two urban emergency departments

Objective:

The underuse of analgesics, or “oligoanalgesia,” is common in emergency departments (EDs). To improve care we must understand our patients’ pain experiences as well as our clinical practice patterns. To this end, we examined pain etiology, pain management practices and patient satisfaction in 2 urban EDs.

Methods:

We conducted a cross-sectional study using structured interviews and chart reviews for patients with pain who presented to either of 2 university-affiliated EDs. We assessed pain etiologies, patient pain experiences, pain management practices, and patient satisfaction with pain management.

Results:

The 525 study subjects reported high pain intensity levels on presentation, with a median rating of 8 on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS). At discharge, pain severity had decreased to a median rating of 4; however, 48% of patients were discharged from the ED in moderate to severe pain (NRS 5–10). Subjects reported spending 57% of their ED stay in moderate to severe pain. Analgesics were administered to only 50% of patients. The mean time to analgesic administration was almost 2 hours. Despite high levels of reported pain at discharge and low rates of analgesic administration, subjects reported high satisfaction with pain management.

Conclusions:

In the 2 EDs studied, we found high levels of pain severity for our patients, as well as low levels of analgesic use. When used, analgesic administration was often delayed. Despite these findings, patient satisfaction remained high. Despite recent efforts to improve pain management practice; oligoanalgesia remains a problem for our specialty.

Nurse-initiated, titrated intravenous opioid analgesia reduces time to analgesia for selected painful conditions

Objectives:

Traditionally, patients have to wait until assessed by a physician for opioid analgesia to be administered, which contributes to delays to analgesia. Western Hospital developed a protocol enabling nurses to initiate opioid analgesia prior to medical assessment for selected conditions. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of this protocol on time to first opioid dose in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal or biliary colic.

Methods:

This was an explicit medical record review of all adult patients with an ED discharge diagnosis of renal or biliary colic presenting to a metropolitan teaching hospital ED. Patients were identified via the ED data management system. Data collected included demographics, condition, triage category, time of presentation, whether analgesia was nurse-initiated or not, and interval from arrival to first opioid analgesic dose. The narcotic drug register for the relevant period was also searched to cross-check whether opiates were doctor- or nurse-initiated.

Results:

There were 58 presentations in the nurse-initiated opioid analgesia group and 99 in the non-nurse-initiated analgesia group. Groups were reasonably well matched for gender, triage category and time of presentation, but there was a higher proportion of biliary colic in the non-nurse-initiated analgesia group. Median time to first analgesic dose was 31 minutes in the nurse-initiated group and 57 minutes in the non-nurse-initiated analgesia group (effect size, 26 minutes; 95% confidence interval 16-36 min;p&lt; 0.0001]. There were no major adverse events in either group.

Conclusion:

A nurse-initiated opioid analgesia protocol reduces delays to opioid analgesia for patients with renal and biliary colic.

Improving acute pain management in emergency medicine

Undertreatment of pain (oligoanalgesia) in the emergency department is common, and it negatively impacts patient care. Both failure of appropriate pain assessment and the potential for unsafe analgesic use contribute to the problem. As a result, achieving satisfactory analgesia while minimizing side effects remains particularly challenging for emergency physicians, both in the emergency department and after a patient is discharged. Improvements in rapid pain assessment and in evaluation of noncommunicative populations may result in a better estimation of which patients require analgesia and how much pain is present. New formulations of available treatments, such as rapidly absorbed, topical, or intranasal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug formulations or intranasal opioids, may provide effective analgesia with an improved risk-benefit profile. Other pharmacological therapies have been shown to be effective for certain pain modalities, such as the use of antidepressants for musculoskeletal pain, γ-aminobutyric acid agonists for neuropathic and postsurgical pain, antipsychotics for headache, and topical capsaicin for neuropathic pain. Nonpharmacological methods of pain control include the use of electrical stimulation, relaxation therapies, psychosocial/manipulative therapies, and acupuncture. Tailoring of available treatment options to specific pain modalities, as well as improvements in pain assessment, treatment options, and formulations, may improve pain control in the emergency department setting and beyond.

Pain management in the emergency chain: the use and effectiveness of pain management in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE

While acute musculoskeletal pain is a frequent complaint in emergency care, its management is often neglected, placing patients at risk for insufficient pain relief. Our aim is to investigate how often pain management is provided in the prehospital phase and emergency department (ED) and how this affects pain relief. A secondary goal is to identify prognostic factors for clinically relevant pain relief.

DESIGN

This prospective study (PROTACT) includes 697 patients admitted to ED with musculoskeletal extremity injury. Data regarding pain, injury, and pain management were collected using questionnaires and registries.

RESULTS

Although 39.9% of the patients used analgesics in the prehospital phase, most patients arrived at the ED with severe pain. Despite the high pain prevalence in the ED, only 35.7% of the patients received analgesics and 12.5% received adequate analgesic pain management. More than two-third of the patients still had moderate to severe pain at discharge. Clinically relevant pain relief was achieved in only 19.7% of the patients. Pain relief in the ED was higher in patients who received analgesics compared with those who did not. Besides analgesics, the type of injury and pain intensity on admission were associated with pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still room for improvement of musculoskeletal pain management in the chain of emergency care. A high percentage of patients were discharged with unacceptable pain levels. The use of multimodal pain management or the implementation of a pain management protocol might be useful methods to optimize pain relief. Additional research in these areas is needed.

The display effects of patients' self-assessment on traumatic acute pain on the proportion and timing of analgesics administration in the emergency department

Background

Acute pain assessment in the emergency department (ED) is important in particular during the triage process. Early pain assessment and management improve outcome. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of documentation and display of patient's self-assessment of pain using numerical rating scale (NRS) on analgesic use among adult trauma patients in ED.

Methods

A randomized control trial was conducted recruiting 216 trauma patients who presented to ED of two tertiary centers. Pain score was done using NRS for all patients. They were randomized into pain score display group or not displayed in the control. The outcome measured were proportion of patients receiving analgesics and timing from triage to analgesic administration.

Results

The proportion of patients who received analgesics when pain score was displayed was 6.5% more than when pain score was not displayed. This difference was however not statistically significant. However, stratified categorical analysis using chi-square showed that the displayed severe pain group was 1.3 times more likely to receive analgesics compared to the non-displayed group. The mean timing to analgesic administration for the displayed and non-displayed groups were 81.3 ± 41.2 (95% C.I 65.9, 96.7) and 88.7 ± 45.4 (95% C.I 69.0, 108.3), respectively (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The proportion of patients who received analgesics increased when NRS was displayed. However, the pain display has no significant effect on the timing of analgesics.

Factors associated with high levels of patient satisfaction with pain management

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine, among emergency department (ED) patients, the factors associated with a high level of satisfaction with pain management.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study in a single ED. Consecutive adult patients, with triage pain scores of ≥4 (numerical rating scale=0 to 10), were enrolled. Variables examined included demographics, presenting complaint, pain scores, nurse-initiated analgesia, analgesia administered, time to first analgesia, specific pain communication, and whether "adequate analgesia" was provided (defined as a decrease in pain score to <4 and a decrease from the triage pain score of ≥2). The level of patient satisfaction with their pain management (six-point scale: very unsatisfied to very satisfied) was determined by a blinded investigator 48 hours post discharge. Logistic regression analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Data were complete for 476 patients: mean (±standard deviation [SD]) age was 43.6 (±17.2) years, and 237 were males (49.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=45.2% to 54.4%). A total of 190 (39.9%, 95% CI=35.5% to 44.5%) patients were "very satisfied" with their pain management, and 207 (43.5%, 95% CI=39.0% to 48.1%) patients received adequate analgesia. Three variables were associated with the patient being very satisfied: the provision of adequate analgesia (odds ratio [OR]=7.8, 95% CI=4.9 to 12.4), specific pain communication (OR=2.3, 95% CI=1.3 to 4.1), and oral opioid administration (OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.1 to 3.4). Notably, the provision of nurse-initiated analgesia to 211 patients (44.3%, 95% CI=39.8% to 48.9%) and the short time to analgesia (median=11.5 minutes; interquartile range [IQR]=2.0 to 85.8 minutes) were not associated with being very satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

The receipt of adequate analgesia (as defined) is highly associated with patient satisfaction. This variable may serve as a clinically relevant and achievable target in the pursuit of best-practice pain management.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients discharged home from the Emergency Department following trauma team activation

OBJECTIVE

Past research on trauma teams has largely focused on the outcomes of severely injured patients. Few studies have looked at patients who have activated the trauma team but are discharged home directly from the Emergency Department. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics and outcomes of these patients following discharge.

METHODS

All adult Emergency Department discharged trauma patients who were contactable by telephone 7-14 days post-discharge and spoke English were eligible for the study. A 10-min questionnaire was conducted covering their perceptions of Emergency Department care, return to activities, discharge and follow-up care, missed injuries and pain management. Data were also collected on their age, sex, injuries and length of stay in the Emergency Department.

RESULTS

Over the 169-day study period, 158 trauma patients were discharged from Liverpool hospital, which formed 30.1% of all patients treated by the trauma team. Of these, 106 patients were contactable and 100 completed the follow-up questionnaire. They suffered mainly minor injuries but stayed a median 341 min in the Department. Most patients (87%) reported that their health had impacted on their daily activities and about half of all full-time workers remained off work for 1 week or more. A small number of patients had missed fractures or other serious injuries. Two-third of patients visited a medical practitioner after discharge and 8 required further specialist and/or in-patient care.

CONCLUSION

Most trauma patients discharged from the Emergency Department continue to suffer significant morbidity after their departure from hospital and require further medical care. A small number of patients also had significant missed injuries. This suggests that more comprehensive discharge and follow-up care for these patients is warranted.

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.

Quality indicators for geriatric emergency care

OBJECTIVES

Emergency departments (EDs), similar to other health care environments, are concerned with improving the quality of patient care. Older patients comprise a large, growing, and particularly vulnerable subset of ED users. The project objective was to develop ED-specific quality indicators for older patients to help practitioners identify quality gaps and focus quality improvement efforts.

METHODS

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Geriatric Task Force, including members representing the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), selected three conditions where there are quality gaps in the care of older patients: cognitive assessment, pain management, and transitional care in both directions between nursing homes and EDs. For each condition, a content expert created potential quality indicators based on a systematic review of the literature, supplemented with expert opinion when necessary. The original candidate quality indicators were modified in response to evaluation by four groups: the Task Force, the SAEM Geriatric Interest Group, and audiences at the 2007 SAEM Annual Meeting and the 2008 American Geriatrics Society Annual Meeting.

RESULTS

The authors offer 6 quality indicators for cognitive assessment, 6 for pain management, and 11 for transitions between nursing homes and EDs.

CONCLUSIONS

These quality indicators will help researchers and clinicians target quality improvement efforts. The next steps will be to test the feasibility of capturing the quality indicators in existing medical records and to measure the extent to which each quality indicator is successfully met in current emergency practice.

[Acute pain management in proximal femoral fractures: femoral nerve block (catheter technique) vs. systemic pain therapy using a clinic internal organisation model]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of catheter-mediated femoral nerve block analgesia with systemic pain therapy in patients with proximal femoral fractures in the pre-operative and post-operative setting using a protocol for coordinating pain management.

METHODS

In a prospective randomised trial of patients attending the emergency department, 100 individuals were selected with a clinically diagnosed proximal femoral fracture. Patients were divided into two equal groups A and B. Group A (n=50) received a catheter-mediated femoral nerve block with 1% prilocaine (40 ml) and post-operatively 0.2% ropivacaine (30 ml) 6 hourly. Group B (n=50) initially received intravenous metamizol (1 g) and a fixed combination of oral tilidine (100 mg) + naloxone (8 mg). Patients aged 90 years or more received a reduced dose (tilidine 75 mg + naloxone 6 mg). In the post-operative period regular oral ibuprofen (400 mg, 8 hourly) in addition to oral tilidine (50 mg) + naloxone (4 mg) was given as required for break through pain. Pain intensity was measured using a verbal rating scale (VRS) from 1 to 5: pain free (=1), mild pain (=2), moderate pain (=3), severe pain (=4), excruciating pain (=5). Pain scores were recorded at rest (R), during passive anteflection (30 degrees) of the hip (PA) on arrival and at 15 and 30 min after initial administration of analgesia. Thereafter, recordings were made 4 times a day up to the third post-operative day.

RESULTS

Pain scores were comparable for both groups on admission (VRS in R 2.50 vs. 2.46; VRS during PA 4.30 vs. 4.34). Significant pain relief was achieved in both groups following initial administration of analgesia, but the total pain scores in group A were significantly lower than in group B (VRS in R 1.22 vs. 1.58, p<0.01 and VRS during PA 2.66 vs. 3.26; p<0.001). No difference was noted between the two groups during the first 3 post-operative days. No severe complications occurred as a result of analgesia, however, the catheter was dislodged in 20% of patients in group A resulting in the need for systemically administered analgesia.

CONCLUSION

All patients presenting with proximal femoral fractures should receive adequate analgesia within the emergency department even prior to radiographic imaging. Femoral nerve block should be considered as the method of choice. The insertion of a femoral nerve block catheter has the dual advantage of early analgesia permitting repeated clinical examination in addition to continued post-operative pain management. The cumbersome logistics inherent in this technique within the clinical setting limits its practical application. An initial single-shot regional nerve block followed by a systemic post-operative analgesia protocol was considered an appropriate alternative. The execution of safe, consistent and appropriate regional nerve block anaesthesia is reliant on formal guidelines and protocols as agreed by the multidisciplinary teams involved with patient-directed pain management and good clinical practice.

Prehospital pain treatment: an economic productivity factor in emergency medicine?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Analgesia is a recommended practice for pain treatment in prehospital emergency medicine, but all experts note suboptimal pain relief or oligoanalgesia. The increase in the Care Workload (CW) and the Medical Treatment Duration (MTD) linked to analgesia are two explanatory factors, and they are representative of the unavailability of a prehospital team. The unavailability of a team is an opportunity cost which is probably the most important cost within the framework of prehospital emergency. The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of analgesia use on the availability of prehospital emergency teams.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, multicentre cohort study conducted in 10 French Mobile Emergency and Resuscitation Services (MERS) between September 2001 and June 2003. A case-control study was performed including 568 case patients who received analgesia matched with controls based on diagnosis and severity. The pairs were compared for MTD and CW.

RESULTS

No significant difference between cases and controls was found concerning MTD (P = 0.134). Conversely, a difference was found for CW (P < 10(-4)), with a mean value of 53.7 Project Recherche Nursing (PRN) points for the cases and 45.8 PRN points for the controls.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that analgesia generates an additional CW without increasing the MTD, and does not hinder the MERS teams' availability. This economic result should improve adherence to these clinical practice guidelines. Thus, analgesia appears to be a factor of productivity in the current context of economic pressures in terms of the funding of the healthcare system.

Comparisons of high versus low emergency department utilizers in sickle cell disease

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Patients with sickle cell disease often receive a substantial amount of their health care in the emergency department (ED) and some come to the ED frequently, seeking treatment for pain. As a result, patients with sickle cell disease are often stigmatized as opioid-seeking ED overutilizers. We describe the proportion of sickle cell disease patients who are high utilizers of the ED and compare them with other sickle cell disease patients on demographics, pain characteristics, health data, psychosocial characteristics, and quality of life.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-two patients completed baseline data and at least 30 days of daily diary data. Baseline data included demographics, health data, and quality of life (Medical Outcome Study 36 Item Short Form). Daily diary data included ED utilization for sickle cell pain and descriptors of pain and distress.

RESULTS

Eighty-two (35.5%) patients were found to be high ED utilizers. Clinically important and statistically significant differences were found between high ED utilizers and all other sickle cell disease patients: lower hematocrit level, more transfusions, more pain days, more pain crises, higher mean pain and distress, and worse quality of life on Medical Outcome Study 36 Item Short Form physical function summary scales. After controlling for severity and frequency of pain, high ED utilizers did not use opioids more frequently than other sickle cell disease patients.

CONCLUSION

A substantial minority of sickle cell disease patients are high ED utilizers. However, high ED utilizers with sickle cell disease are more severely ill as measured by laboratory variables, have more pain, more distress, and have a lower quality of life.

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

OBJECTIVES

Oligoanalgesia for acute abdominal pain historically has been attributed to the provider's fear of masking serious underlying pathology. The authors assessed whether a gender disparity exists in the administration of analgesia for acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive nonpregnant adults with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain of less than 72 hours' duration who presented to an urban emergency department (ED) from April 5, 2004, to January 4, 2005. The main outcome measures were analgesia administration and time to analgesic treatment. Standard comparative statistics were used.

RESULTS

Of the 981 patients enrolled (mean age +/- standard deviation [SD] 41 +/- 17 years; 65% female), 62% received any analgesic treatment. Men and women had similar mean pain scores, but women were less likely to receive any analgesia (60% vs. 67%, difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1% to 13.6%) and less likely to receive opiates (45% vs. 56%, difference 11%, 95% CI = 4.1% to 17.1%). These differences persisted when gender-specific diagnoses were excluded (47% vs. 56%, difference 9%, 95% CI = 2.5% to 16.2%). After controlling for age, race, triage class, and pain score, women were still 13% to 25% less likely than men to receive opioid analgesia. There was no gender difference in the receipt of nonopioid analgesia. Women waited longer to receive their analgesia (median time 65 minutes vs. 49 minutes, difference 16 minutes, 95% CI = 3.5 to 33 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender bias is a possible explanation for oligoanalgesia in women who present to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Standardized protocols for analgesic administration may ameliorate this discrepancy.

Analgesic efficacy of orodispersible paracetamol in patients admitted to the emergency department with an osteoarticular injury

INTRODUCTION

Acute pain still persists in patients under treatment after admission to emergency departments (ED). The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of 1 g of paracetamol in patients presenting an osteoarticular injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study included all patients admitted to the ED with an osteoarticular injury and a pain score above 30 on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Patients were selected on admission by the reception nurse and given paracetamol within 5 min of admission. VAS scores were recorded 30 and 60 min after admission. On discharge from the ED, the patients underwent a further VAS assessment and were asked a question about pain relief (yes/no answer). The primary endpoint was the VAS score at 60 min. The secondary endpoint was the pain relief expressed by the patient on discharge from the ED.

RESULTS

Five hundred and seventy-one patients were included. The median stay in the ED was 90 min (75-120 min). The diagnoses at discharge were sprain or dislocation (ankle, knee, and wrist) for 287 patients, fracture for 102 patients, and other injury for 182 patients. In 69% of the patients, the injured limb was immobilized. The median VAS score on admission was 57. A significant difference was seen between the median VAS on admission and at 1 h after admission (57+/-18 vs. 30+/-18; P<0.0001), and between the median VAS score at admission and the score at discharge from the ED (57+/-18 vs. 26+/-18, P<0.0001). Finally, 81% of the patients expressed pain relief. On discharge from the ED, a gain of 20 mm on the VAS had a positive predictive value of 93% [area under curve (AUC): 89; CI: 86-92; P=0.001], for the endpoint 'patients stating pain relief'.

CONCLUSION

A simple and easily applicable protocol of pain management permits the achievement of satisfactory analgesia during a patient's stay in the ED.

Pain in the Emergency Department: Results of the Pain and Emergency Medicine Initiative (PEMI) Multicenter Study

Pain is the most common reason for emergency department (ED) use, and oligoanalgesia in this setting is known to be common. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has revised standards for pain management; however, the impact of these regulatory changes on ED pain management practice is unknown. This prospective, multicenter study assessed the current state of ED pain management practice. After informed consent, patients aged 8 years and older with presenting pain intensity scores of 4 or greater on an 11-point numerical rating scale completed structured interviews, and their medical records were abstracted. Eight hundred forty-two patients at 20 US and Canadian hospitals participated. On arrival, pain intensity was severe (median, 8/10). Pain assessments were noted in 83% of cases; however, reassessments were uncommon. Only 60% of patients received analgesics that were administered after lengthy delays (median, 90 minutes; range, 0 to 962 minutes), and 74% of patients were discharged in moderate to severe pain. Of patients not receiving analgesics, 42% desired them; however, only 31% of these patients voiced such requests. We conclude that ED pain intensity is high, analgesics are underutilized, and delays to treatment are common. Despite efforts to improve pain management practice, oligoanalgesia remains a problem for emergency medicine.

PERSPECTIVE

Despite the frequency of pain in the emergency department, few studies have examined this phenomenon. This study documents high pain intensity and suboptimal pain management practices in a large multicenter ED network in the United States and Canada. These findings suggest that there is much room for improvement in this area.

Oligoanalgesia in the emergency department: short-term beneficial effects of an education program on acute pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Acute pain is the most frequent complaint in emergency department (ED) admissions, but its management is often neglected, placing patients at risk of oligoanalgesia. We evaluate the effect of the implementation of guidelines for pain management in ED patients with pain at admission or anytime during their stay in our ED.

METHODS

This prospective pre-post intervention cohort study included data collection both before and after guideline implementation. Consecutive adult patients admitted with acute pain from any cause or with pain at any time after admission were enrolled. The quality of pain management was evaluated according to information in the ED medical records by using a standardized collection form, and its impact on patients was recorded with a questionnaire at discharge.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-nine and 192 patients were included during pre- and postintervention periods. Pain was documented in 61% and 76% of nurse and physician notes, respectively, versus 78% and 85% after the intervention (difference 17%/9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8% to 26%/2% to 17%, respectively). Administration of analgesia increased from 40% to 63% (difference 23%; 95% CI 13% to 32%) and of morphine from 10% to 27% (difference 17%; 95% CI 10% to 24%). Mean doses of intravenous morphine increased from 2.4 mg (95% CI 1.9 to 2.9 mg) to 4.6 mg (95% CI 3.9 to 5.3 mg); administration of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and acetaminophen increased as well. There was a greater reduction of visual analogue scale score after intervention: 2.1 cm (95% CI 1.7 to 2.4 cm) versus 2.9 cm (95% CI 2.5 to 3.3 cm), which was associated with improved patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Education program and guidelines implementation for pain management lead to improved pain management, analgesia, and patient satisfaction in the ED.

Physician pain reminder as an intervention to enhance analgesia for extremity and clavicle injuries in pediatric emergency

The purpose of this study was to document analgesic use for limb and clavicle injuries in the pediatric emergency department (ED) and to determine whether a physician-oriented pain scale form on the patient's chart would enhance the administration of analgesia. Patients 3 to 18 years old were recruited prospectively in our tertiary pediatric ED in Toronto. The study included 4 crossover periods, 2 with the pain scale form on the patient's chart and 2 without. A total of 310 patients were recruited, mean age was 10 years, 64% were boys, and 62% had sustained fractures. The mean pain score was 4.4. Only 90 (29%) patients received an analgesic in the ED, and 65 (72%) of them were ordered by a physician. Only 24 (20%) in the study group and 22 (14%) in the control group received sufficient analgesia (P = .13). The median time to physician-initiated analgesia after arrival was 2.0 hours (1.0 to 3.3 hours), without a significant difference between groups. Pain control was 4-fold more appropriate in children receiving opioids versus nonopioids. Physician pain reminders did not enhance, and other measures should be taken to increase the dispensing of analgesia.

PERSPECTIVE

This is the first study to evaluate whether the addition of a physician-oriented pain-scale form on the chart of patients with injuries improves administration of analgesia in the ED. We found that physicians do not give sufficient analgesia even with this reminder form.

Pain in an emergency department: an audit

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of care in patients with pain who visit the emergency department of a university hospital and the evolution of their pain during their emergency department stay.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed using two valid scales (a numerical descriptor scale or a verbal pain intensity scale), and a structured questionnaire to patients and use of patient charts to collect information on pain intensity on arrival and before discharge, characteristics of pain and of its management.

RESULTS

In the 726 participating patients, median age was 37 years (range: 18-97), and 54% of the patients were men. Upon arrival, 563 patients presented with pain (78%), rated > or =7 in 35% of the 390 patients evaluated using numerical descriptor scale. Forty-four percent had taken analgesics before arrival. Their median waiting time before initial medical examination was 30 min. Pain was identified by triage nurses (70%) or by physicians (77%) and was rated by nurses (23%) and physicians (11%). Forty-seven percent also experienced pain during care and 27% received analgesics during their stay. Pain intensity remained unchanged in 70% of patients, increased in 7% and decreased in 23%. Of the 480 patients with pain on arrival evaluated before discharge, 395 (82%) patients were unrelieved before going home, rated > or =7 in 32% of the 390 patients evaluated using numerical descriptor scale. Analgesics were ordered before leaving the emergency department in 81%.

CONCLUSION

Even if pain has been identified, its assessment and management remains inadequate. The quality of care may be improved by educating the personnel in developing protocols and in evaluating pain management.

Pain after discharge: A pilot study of factors associated with pain management and functional status

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about how continued pain after discharge from the emergency department is managed by patients, and how it may interfere with the functional status of patients. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate pain management practices, patient satisfaction with pain medications, and how continued pain after ED discharge may influence the functional status of patients who presented with chief complaints of abdominal, chronic, abscess, or trauma-related pain.

METHODS

This prospective, descriptive study was conducted at 2 Level 1 trauma hospitals. Twenty-nine patients completed an emergency department discharge questionnaire and follow-up phone survey. Data were collected via telephone interviews an average of 72 hours after discharge.

RESULTS

On emergency department discharge, patients reported pain intensity that had not decreased significantly at the time of the home interview. Most patients (78%) used ED-prescribed medications and reported a high level of satisfaction with their pain relief (7.2 +/- 2.1). Continued pain after ED discharge primarily interfered with patient's ability to work (7.3 +/- 3.8), to go outside for social activities (6.5 +/- 4.1) and to ambulate (5.0 +/- 4.1).

DISCUSSION

Patients in this study, on average, continued to experience pain for up to 96 hours after discharge from the emergency department. They reported a high level of pain relief from their ED-prescribed medications. However, interference with functions of daily living due to continued pain was substantial. Further studies are needed to examine the paradoxical reports of high satisfaction with pain relief yet substantial functional limitations experienced by patients after ED discharge.