Les échelles de mesure de la douleur dans un service d'accueil des urgences

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.

Factors associated with unoffered trauma analgesia in critical care transport

OBJECTIVE

Pain relief is a key out-of-hospital patient care outcome measure, yet many trauma patients do not receive prompt analgesia. Although specialty critical care transport (CCT) teams provide analgesia frequently, successfully, and safely, there is still a population of CCT patients to whom analgesia is not offered. We report the factors associated with non-administration of analgesia and with analgesic effect in trauma patients cared for by CCT teams.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of consecutive transport records for nonintubated trauma patients with self-reported pain during specialty CCT care. Patient demographics, CCT interventions, clinical traits, and pain self-reports are measured. Means comparisons are made with a univariate analysis of variance, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported for between-group comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 209 enrolled patients, 169 (80.9%; 95% CI, 75.6%-86.2%) were treated (147 received analgesia and 22 offered analgesia but refused). In patients with pain scale documentation (n=145), self-reported pain on a scale from 0 to 10 decreased from 6.8+/-2.8 to 3.3+/-2.4 (P<or=.001). Three factors were associated with absence of analgesic administration: initial pain level (OR for administration, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.40), pain scale documentation (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.60), and transport program (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.74). No clinical factor was associated with analgesia effectiveness in treated patients.

CONCLUSION

The identified factors may represent opportunities for CCT teams to optimize analgesic treatment.

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.

Emergency physicians’ pain judgments: cluster analyses on scenarios of acute abdominal pain

Physicians have been found to give lower ratings of patients' pain than do the patients themselves. We hypothesized that the physicians' rating depends not only on the patient's pain rating but also on other cues. We also hypothesized that these cues influence physicians' pain treatment and urgency level. We gave to 52 emergency room physicians in Toulouse, France, 45 scenarios describing patients with acute abdominal pain, representing all combinations of 5 levels of patient's pain rating, 3 levels of behavioral manifestations of pain, and three signs of the severity of the abdominal pathology (namely, the likelihood of appendicitis). The participants rated the patient's pain, selected the intensity of pain treatment, and judged the degree of urgency of calling in a surgeon. In rating pain, physicians took into account the patient's rating, behavioral manifestations of pain, and the signs of abdominal pathology. Clusters analyses showed two sets of individual differences. When rating pain and choosing pain treatment, physicians gave either a low or high weight to behavioral pain cues. In urgency judgments, physicians could be separated into those who gave considerable weight to the different levels of severity and those who did not.

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.

Efficacy of fentanyl analgesia for trauma in critical care transport

INTRODUCTION

Pain relief is one of the most important interventions for out-of-hospital patient care providers. This paper documents the need for and benefits from the administration of fentanyl to trauma patients during critical care transport.

METHODS

We underwent a retrospective review of the transport charts of 100 trauma patients who received fentanyl analgesia during transport and who were able to use a numeric response scale to rate their pain from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

Mean initial pain report was 7.6 +/- 2.2 units, relieved to 3.7 +/- 2.8 units by a mean total fentanyl dose of 1.6 +/- 0.8 microg/kg (P < .001). Neither initial pain level nor pain relief differed between male and female patients, but did differ between patients originating at the site of injury and those transferred between hospitals. Fentanyl dose correlated poorly with the magnitude of pain relief (r = 0.22), but a dose greater than 2 microg/kg provided more relief than lower doses (5.1 +/- 2.1 vs 3.6 +/- 2.4, P < .02).

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl analgesia from these critical care transport teams provided significant pain relief to trauma patients. Pain reduction was greater for patients who received more than 2.0 microg/kg of fentanyl.

Pain rating by patients and physicians: evidence of systematic pain miscalibration

This study is an investigation of the existence and potential causes of systematic differences between patients and physicians in their assessments of the intensity of patients' pain. In an emergency department in France, patients (N=200) and their physicians (N=48) rated the patients' pain using a visual analog scale, both on arrival and at discharge. Results showed, in confirmation of previous studies, that physicians gave significantly lower ratings than did patients of the patients' pain both on arrival (mean difference -1.33, standard error (SE)=0.17, on a scale of 0-10, P<0.001) and at exit (-1.38, SE=0.15, P<0.001). The extent of 'miscalibration' was greater with expert than novice physicians and depended on interactions among physician gender, patient gender, and the obviousness of the cause of pain. Thus physicians' pain ratings may have been affected by non-medical factors.

Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP) IV: pain measurement in out-of-hospital outcomes research

The purpose of the Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project (EMSOP) is to develop a foundation and framework for out-of-hospital outcomes research. In prior work (EMSOP I), discomfort had the highest weighted score among outcome categories for the top 3 adult conditions (ie, minor trauma, respiratory distress, chest pain) and the first and third highest rankings for children's conditions (ie, minor trauma, respiratory distress). In this fourth article in the EMSOP series, we discuss issues relevant to the measurement of pain in the out-of-hospital setting, recommended pain measures that require evaluation, and implications for outcomes research focusing on pain. For adults, adolescents, and older children, 2 verbal pain-rating scales are recommended for out-of-hospital evaluation: (1) the Adjective Response Scale, which includes the responses "none," "slight," "moderate," "severe," and "agonizing," and (2) the Numeric Response Scale, which includes responses from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain imaginable). The Oucher Scale, combining a visual analog scale with pictures, seems most promising for out-of-hospital use among younger children. Future research in out-of-hospital care should be conducted to determine the utility and feasibility of these measures, as well as the effectiveness of interventions for pain relief.

A quality control program for acute pain management in out-of-hospital critical care medicine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate a quality control program for improving pain treatment in the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

Pain was evaluated for all patients at the beginning (T(0)) and the end (T(end)) of out-of-hospital management. During the first part of the study (part 1, n=108), the administration and choice of analgesics was left to the physician's discretion. Pain protocols were then modified to encourage the use of opioids. The effectiveness of this new pain management was analyzed (part 2, n=105) using pain scales and quality of relief.

RESULTS

Seventy percent of patients who expressed meaningful pain did not request analgesia, and 36% did not receive any analgesia in part 1 in contrast to 7% in part 2 of the study. The verbal rating scale and visual analog scale scores were substantially improved at T(end) versus T(0) in both periods, but the improvement was greater in part 2 (mean visual analog scale score at T(end) was 29.3+/-23 mm [+/-SD]) than in part 1 (38.6+/-25 mm). The percentage of patients who expressed satisfactory relief increased in part 2 (67% versus 49% in part 1). The mean dose of intravenous morphine was 7.2+/-6 mg. Adverse effects were rare and minor.

CONCLUSION

This program focusing on pain treatment plus implementation of pain protocols (with intravenous morphine) improved pain management in the field.

[Evaluation of acute pain in prehospital medicine]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate acute pain in prehospital setting.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective survey.

PATIENTS

All eligible patients during a 3-month-period, excepted children less than 10-year-old.

METHOD

Pain intensity was evaluated by verbal rating scale with 5 points (VRS), visual analog scale (VAS), demand for antalgics by the patient and the relief obtained. These data were collected at the beginning (T0) and the end (Tend) of medical management. Analgesic treatments were let at the physician's choice.

RESULTS

A series of 255 patients were included (mean age 58 +/- 1.5 SEM, sex-ratio 57M/43F). Among them, 42% experienced pain at VRS. VAS could be used in 60% of patients. VRS evaluated by the patient was correlated to the VAS (P < 0.001). Among those with significant pain (defined by a VAS > or = 30 mm), only 31% asked for analgesia and 64% received analgesics. Pain scales (VRS and VAS) were significantly improved (P < 0.001) at the end of the medical management, except for patients who did not receive any treatment. However, mean VAS was still above 30 mm, even in patients receiving analgesics. Only 49% of patients expressed a good relief at the end of the medical management.

CONCLUSION

Acute pain is frequently observed in prehospital emergency medicine. Pain scales such as VRS and VAS are used easily and convenient for the assessment of pain intensity in this context. However, even if pain is correctly evaluated, it is still inadequately treated. The reasons of these inadequacies must be assessed and corrected with pain treatment protocols including opioids.

[Evaluation of postoperative pain]

Pain is a subjective feeling; its assessment is therefore difficult, and no "gold standard" method exists for humans. Major improvements have, however, been made in the last decade by widespread acceptation of the concept of pain evaluation and widespread use on surgical wards. Evaluation by the patient himself is the rule (unless communication is impaired), as assessment of pain by nurses or doctors systematically leads to underestimation (which also occurs with observational scales). Theoretically, pain should be evaluated in its multiple dimensions such as intensity, location, emotional consequences and semiologic correlates. Scales which have been developed to evaluate these dimensions are, however, too complex for widespread and repetitive use in surgical patients. The Mac Gill Pain Questionnaire is therefore only used in the surgical setting for research purposes. Moreover, its scientific accuracy, although often accepted, is poor and in our opinion cannot be accepted as a reference method. Only methods assessing pain intensity can be used in the clinical setting because of their simplicity. The verbal rating scale (VRS), the numerical rating scale (NRS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS) are preferred by an increasing number of groups. Although scientific validation is difficult, VAS seems the most accurate and reproducible scale. Post-operative pain should be assessed several times a day in every patient, at rest and in dynamic conditions (cough, movement) and should focus on present pain rather than on pain in the previous hours. Assessment of pain is essential before quality-assurance programmes can be implemented.