Senior patients with moderate to severe pain wait longer for analgesic medication in EDs

Triage-initiated intranasal fentanyl for hip fractures in an Emergency Department - Results from introduction of an analgesic guideline

BACKGROUND

Pain relief is a priority for patients with hip fractures who present to Emergency Departments (EDs). Intranasal fentanyl (INF) is an ideal option for nurse initiated analgesia as it does not require intravenous access and can expedite care prior to examination by a physician.

LOCAL PROBLEM

Pain relief in patients with hip fractures is delayed during episodes of ED crowding.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review was conducted following introduction of an INF guideline in an adult ED in 2018. Patients were included over a 4-month period during which the guideline was introduced. Historical and concurrent control groups receiving usual care were compared to patients receiving INF.

INTERVENTIONS

This quality improvement initiative investigated whether an INF analgesia at triage guideline would decrease time to analgesic administration in adults with hip fracture in ED.

RESULTS

This study included 112 patients diagnosed with fractured hips of which 16 patients received INF. Background characteristics were similar between groups. Mean time to analgesic administration (53 v 110 minutes), time to x-ray (46 v 75 minutes), and ED length of stay (234 v 298 minutes) were significantly decreased in the intervention group. Inadequate documentation was a limiting factor in determining improved efficacy of analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Use of triage-initiated INF significantly decreased time to analgesic administration, time to imaging and overall length of stay in ED.

Acute abdominal pain at referral emergency departments: an analysis of performance of three time-dependent quality indicators

BACKGROUND

Abdominal pain is one of the most frequent causes for emergency department (ED) visits. The quality of care and outcomes are determined by time-dependent interventions with barriers to implementation at crowded EDs.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to analyze three prominent quality indicators (QI) including pain assessment (QI1), analgesia in patients reporting severe pain (QI2), and ED length of stay (LOS) (QI3) in adult patients requiring immediate or urgent care due to acute abdominal pain. We aimed to characterize current practice regarding pain management, and we hypothesized that extended ED LOS (≥ 360 min) is associated with poor outcomes in this cohort of ED referrals.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study enrolling all patients with acute abdominal pain as the main cause of ED presentation, triage category red, orange, or yellow, and age ≥ 30 years during two months period. Univariate and multivariable analyses were deployed to determine independent risk factors for QIs performance. For QI1 and QI2, compliance with the QIs were analyzed, while 30-day mortality was set as primary outcome for QI3.

RESULTS

Overall, 965 patients were analyzed including 501 (52%) males with a mean age of 61.8 years. Seventeen percent (167/965) of the patients had immediate or very urgent triage category. Age ≥ 65 years, and red and orange triage categories were risk factors for non-compliance with pain assessment. Seventy four per cent of patients with severe pain (numeric rating scale ≥ 7) received analgesia during the ED visit, in median within 64 min (IQR 35-105 min). Age ≥ 65 years and need for surgical consultation were risk factors for prolonged ED stay. After adjustment to age, gender and triage category, ED LOS ≥ 360 min proved to be independent risk factor for 30-day mortality (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.71-3.40, p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Our investigation identified that non-compliance with pain assessment, analgesia and ED length of stay among patients presenting with abdominal pain to ED results in poor quality of care and detrimental outcomes. Our data support enhanced quality-assessment initiatives for this subset of ED patients.

An evaluation of emergency pain management practices in fragility fractures of the pelvis

BACKGROUND

Inadequately treated pain is associated with significant morbidity in older adults. We aimed to describe current pain management practices for patients with fragility pelvic fractures, a common emergency department (ED) presentation in older adults.

METHODS

We performed a health records' review of adults ≥ 65 years old who presented to two academic EDs with nonoperative fragility pelvic fractures between 01/2014 and 09/2018. The primary outcome measures were type and timing of analgesic medications. Secondary outcome measures included ancillary service consultation, ED length of stay, admission rate and rate of return to ED at 30 days. Data were reported using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We included 411 patients. The majority were female (339, 82.5%) with mean age 83.9 (SD 8.1) years. Nearly, one-third (130, 31.6%) did not receive any analgesia for their fracture. Analgesia was initiated in 123 (29.9%) patients through paramedic and nursing medical directives; 244 (59.4%) patients received physician-initiated opioids (hydromorphone 228 (55.5%); morphine 28 (6.8%)). Only 23.1% of patients received one or more ancillary services: physiotherapy (10.5%), social work (7.3%), geriatric nurse assessment (14.1%), and homecare (3.9%). Mean ED length of stay was 11.6 (SD 7.1) h; 210 (51.1%) patients were admitted; of those discharged, 45 (22.4%) returned to the ED within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

One in three older adults presenting to the ED with nonoperative fragility pelvic fractures receive no analgesia during the course of their prehospital and ED care. Barriers to quality care must be identified and processes implemented to ensure adequate pain management for this population.

Influence of cognitive impairment on pain assessment and management in the emergency department: A retrospective cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the impact of cognitive impairment on pain assessment and management practices in the ED.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional study of patient records was conducted for all elderly patients (65 years or older) who presented to the ED of a large Western Australian tertiary hospital with a fracture because of a fall between 6 February and 14 December 2015. Of 327 records identified, 318 were suitable for data extraction. Of these, 120 patients had a cognitive impairment. Primary outcome measures were the method and frequency of pain assessment, and the delay to the administration of a pain intervention after pain was first assessed for patients with and without a cognitive impairment.

RESULTS

Patients with a cognitive impairment were less likely to have their pain assessed with a standardised pain assessment tool (55% vs 91.4%, P < 0.001), and 9.4 times more likely to have their pain assessed using ad hoc assessments only (95% confidence interval 4.6-19.1). The median time between ED presentation and a patient's first pain assessment was longer for patients with cognitive impairment (28 vs 17 min; P < 0.001), as was the time between repeat assessments (81 vs 62 min; P < 0.004). The median times to receive a pain intervention following pain assessment were 51 and 50 min for cognitively intact and impaired patients, respectively (P = 0.209, after adjustment for the first pain score).

CONCLUSION

Pain is inadequately and inappropriately assessed for elderly patients with a cognitive impairment in the ED, resulting in delays in initiation of pain management.

Pain Assessment of Elderly Patients with Cognitive Impairment in the Emergency Department: Implications for Pain Management-A Narrative Review of Current Practices

Elderly people are susceptible to both falls and cognitive impairment making them a particularly vulnerable group of patients when it comes to pain assessment and management in the emergency department (ED). Pain assessment is often difficult in patients who present to the ED with a cognitive impairment as they are frequently unable to self-report their level of pain, which can have a negative impact on pain management. This paper aims to review how cognitive impairment influences pain assessment in elderly adults who present to the ED with an injury due to a fall. A literature search of EMBASE, ProQuest, PubMed, Science Direct, SciFinder and the Curtin University Library database was conducted using keyword searches to generate lists of articles which were then screened for relevance by title and then abstract to give a final list of articles for full-text review. Further articles were identified by snowballing from the reference lists of the full-text articles. The literature reports that ED staff commonly use visual or verbal analogue scales to assess pain, but resort to their own intuition or physiological parameters rather than using standardised observational pain assessment tools when self-report of pain is not attainable due to cognitive impairment. While studies have found that the use of pain assessment tools improves the recognition and management of pain, pain scores are often not recorded for elderly patients with a cognitive impairment in the ED, leading to poorer pain management in this patient group in terms of time to analgesic administration and the use of strong opioids. All healthcare professionals involved in the care of such patients, including pharmacists, need to be aware of this and strive to ensure analgesic use is guided by appropriate and accurate pain assessment in the ED.

Improving Pain Relief in Elder Patients (I-PREP): An Emergency Department Education and Quality Intervention

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of a novel combined education and quality improvement (QI) program for management of pain in older adults in the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN

Controlled pre/postintervention examination.

SETTING

An academic urban ED seeing 60,000 adult visits annually.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 65 and older experiencing moderate to severe pain.

INTERVENTION

Linked standardized education and continuous QI for multidisciplinary staff in an urban, academic ED from January 2012 to January 2014.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain intensity, percentage receiving and time to pain assessment and reassessment, percentage receiving and time to delivery of analgesic.

RESULTS

The percentage of participants with final pain score of 4 or less (out of 10) increased 47.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 41.8-53.2%). Median decrease in pain intensity improved significantly, from 0.0 to 5.0 points (P < .001). Median final pain score decreased from 7.0 to 4.0 points (P < .001). The percentage of participants with any pain improvement increased 43.7% (95% CI = 37.1-50.3%, P < .001). Pain reassessments increased significantly (from 51.9% to 82.5%, P < .001). The percentage receiving analgesics increased significantly (from 64.1% to 84.8%, P < .001). After the intervention, participants had 3.1 (95% CI = 2.1-4.4, P < .001) greater odds of receiving analgesics and 4.7 (95% CI = 3.5-6.5, P < .001) greater odds of documented pain reassessment.

CONCLUSION

The I-PREP intervention substantially improved pain management in older adults in the ED with moderate to severe musculoskeletal or abdominal pain. Significant reductions in pain intensity were achieved, the timing of pain assessments and reassessments was improved, and analgesics were delivered faster. Tightly linking education to targeted QI improved pain management of older adults in the ED.

The assessment and management of pain in patients with dementia in hospital settings: a multi-case exploratory study from a decision making perspective

BACKGROUND

Pain is often poorly managed in people who have a dementia. Little is known about how this patient population is managed in hospital, with research to date focused mainly on care homes. This study aimed to investigate how pain is recognised, assessed and managed in patients with dementia in a range of acute hospital wards, to inform the development of a decision support tool to improve pain management for this group.

METHODS

A qualitative, multi-site exploratory case study. Data were collected in four hospitals in England and Scotland. Methods included non-participant observations, audits of patient records, semi-structured interviews with staff and carers, and analysis of hospital ward documents. Thematic analysis was performed through the lens of decision making theory.

RESULTS

Staff generally relied on patients' self-report of pain. For patients with dementia, however, communication difficulties experienced because of their condition, the organisational context, and time frames of staff interactions, hindered patients' ability to provide staff with information about their pain experience. This potentially undermined the trials of medications used to provide pain relief to each patient and assessments of their responses to these treatments. Furthermore, given the multidisciplinary environment, a patient's communication about their pain involved several members of staff, each having to make sense of the patient's pain as in an 'overall picture'. Information about patients' pain, elicited in different ways, at different times and by different health care staff, was fragmented in paper-based documentation. Re-assembling the pieces to form a 'patient specific picture of the pain' required collective staff memory, 'mental computation' and time.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for an efficient method of eliciting and centralizing all pain-related information for patients with dementia, which is distributed in time and between personnel. Such a method should give an overall picture of a patient's pain which is rapidly accessible to all involved in their care. This would provide a much-needed basis for making decisions to support the effective management of the pain of older people with dementia in hospital.

Impact of Age on Pain Perception for Typical Painful Diagnoses in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Age-related differences in pain perception have been demonstrated in experimental settings but have been investigated scarcely and without valid scale in the clinical framework.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of age on pain perception for recognized painful diagnoses encountered in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of real-time archived data was performed in a tertiary urban and a secondary regional ED. We included all consecutive adult patients (≥18 years) with the following diagnosis at discharge: renal colic, pancreatitis, appendicitis, headache/migraine, dislocation and extremities fractures, and a pain evaluation of ≥1 (0-10, verbal numerical scale) at triage. The primary outcome was to compare for each of these diagnoses the level of pain intensity between four age groups (18-44; 45-64; 65-74; 75+ years).

RESULTS

A total of 15,670 patients (48% women) were triaged with a mean pain intensity of 7.7 (SD=2.0). Women exhibited greater pain scores than men for pancreatitis, headache/migraine, and extremity fracture. Renal colic, pancreatitis, appendicitis, and headache/migraine showed a linear decrease in pain scores with age whereas dislocation and extremity fractures did not present age differences. Mean differences in pain intensity scores between young adults (18-44 years) and patients aged ≥75 years were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.5-1.1) for renal colic, 1.1 (95% CI 0.7-1.4) for pancreatitis, 0.70 (95% CI 0.2-1.2) for appendicitis, and 0.86 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) for headache/migraine.

CONCLUSION

Older patients perceive similar pain for dislocation and extremity fractures and less for visceral and headache/migraine pain; however, these age differences may not be clinically important.

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.