Pain Management In Emergency Department Research Articles

Fracture pain in children in the emergency department: the impact of a new pain management procedure

PurposeTo compare compliance with the French national guidelines before and after the implementation (in 2018) of a new protocol on acute fracture pain management in the pediatric emergency department of a French university medical center.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, before-after study in patients aged below 16 years presenting at the pediatric emergency department with a fracture. We compared pain management before (in 2017) and after (in 2019 and 2020) implementation of the new procedure. The primary endpoint was appropriate pain management, defined as (i) an appropriate initial assessment of pain, (ii) appropriate treatment with analgesic drugs (acetaminophen for mild pain, acetaminophen and ibuprofen for moderate pain, ibuprofen and morphine for severe pain) and (iii) reassessment of the pain intensity.Results572 patients were included (mean age: 6.5 years; male: 60%). 190 in 2017 and 382 in 2019–2020. Pain management was appropriate for 40% of the patients in 2017 and 52% in 2019–2020 (p = 0.004). Pain was rated for 98% of patients in 2017 vs. 100% in 2019–2020 (p = 0.04). The frequency of appropriate treatment for mild pain and moderate pain increased significantly from 52 to 76% and from 0 to 44%, respectively. The administration of ibuprofen increased by 26% points (from 3 to 20 patients treated) and the administration of morphine increased by 29% points (from 1 to 17 patients treated). Pain reassessment rose significantly from 21 to 43%. Levels of compliance with the guidelines were similar in 2019 and 2020. Analgesia was significantly more effective in 2019–2020 than in 2017 (in 20% vs. 14% of the patients, respectively; p = 0.005).ConclusionAfter the implementation of a new protocol for the management of acute fracture pain, we observed an increase in compliance with the guidelines. Although the use of ibuprofen and morphine rose significantly as did the frequency of pain reassessment, further improvements are required.

Comparing intravenous lidocaine and pethidine for pain management in emergency department patients with femoral bone fracture: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIntravenous lidocaine has shown promise as an effective analgesic in various clinical settings, but its utility for pain management in emergency departments, especially for bone fractures, remains relatively understudied.ObjectiveThis study compared intravenous lidocaine to pethidine for femoral bone fracture pain management.MethodsThis double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of AJA University of Medical Sciences affiliated hospitals. Patients aged 18–70 years-old with femoral bone fracture and experiencing severe pain, defined as a numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain ≥ 7, were included in the study. One group received intravenous pethidine (25 mg), while the other group received intravenous lidocaine (3 mg/kg, not exceeding 200 mg), infused with 250 ml saline over 20 min. Pain levels were evaluated before treatment administration (0 min) and at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after treatment administration using the NRS.ResultsSeventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. Demographic characteristics and pain scores were similar between the two groups. The mean pain scores upon arrival for the lidocaine and pethidine groups were 8.50 ± 1 and 8.0 ± 1, respectively; after one hour, they were 4.0 ± 1 and 4.0 ± 1, respectively. While there was a statistically significant reduction in pain in both groups after one hour, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.262). Pethidine had a higher incidence of adverse events, though not statistically significant. Additionally, females required more rescue analgesics.ConclusionThe administration of intravenous lidocaine is beneficial for managing pain in femoral bone fractures, suggesting that lidocaine could be a potent alternative to opioids.Trial RegistrationIRCT20231213060355N1 (https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74624) (30/12/2023).

Enhancing Emergency Department Pain Management for Older Adults with the Hip Fracture Fast-Track (HFFT) Protocol in a Middle-Income Country.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Hip Fracture Fast-Track (HFFT) protocol, designed specifically for older patients at our hospital, which commenced on January 1, 2022, on the management of emergency department (ED) pain in older adults with hip fractures. Retrospective pre- and post-study data from electronic health records (EHR) at our hospital, using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes S72.0, S72.1, S72.8, and S72.9, were utilized. The study included patients aged 65 years or older who presented to the ED with low-energy, non-pathologic isolated hip fractures or proximal femur fractures. The pre-HFFT period included patients from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, and the post-HFFT period included patients from January 1, 2022, to October 31, 2023. Data were compared for the proportion of patients undergoing pain evaluation in the ED, before discharge, time to first analgesia, number of patients receiving pain relief in the ED, and the use of fascia iliaca compartment blocks (FICBs) and pericapsular nerve group blocks (PENGBs). The final analysis involved 258 patients, with 116 in the pre-protocol group and 142 in the post-protocol group. The rate of analgesic use increased significantly in the post-HFFT group (78 [67.24%] vs 111 [78.17%], P = 0.049). The rate of pain score screening at triage increased from 51.72% before the HFFT protocol to 86.62% post-HFFT protocol (p < 0.001). Compared with the pre-HFFT protocol, the post-HFFT protocol exhibited a higher rate of FICB (0% vs 14.08%, p < 0.001) and PENGB (0% vs 5.63%, p = 0.009) administration. The HFFT protocol's implementation was associated with improved ED pain evaluation and analgesic administration in older adults with hip fractures. These findings indicate that tailored protocols, such as the HFFT, hold promise for enhancing emergency care for this vulnerable population.

Multimarkers approach in chest pain management in Emergency department: a focus on the prognostic role of sST2 and suPAR

Chest pain is one of the most prevalent causes of Emergency Department (ED) admission and could be a presenting symptom of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The aim of this review was to provide an overview of the research about troponin and its limitations and new biomarkers used in patients with cardiovascular diseases, with a special focus on soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) and Soluble Urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR). In January 2024, a PubMed and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine (RCM) search was carried out to identify all relevant papers in the past five years. 80 articles were included in the final review. ssT2 and suPAR are involved in both acute and chronic cardiovascular disease and can predict the risk of adverse events. sST2 and suPAR are promising biomarkers that, in combination with troponin, could help in the management of patients with chest pain in the ED. Further studies are needed to validate their role in management of ACS in this specific setting.

Effectiveness of Intranasal Analgesia in the Emergency Department.

In the Emergency Department (ED), pain is one of the symptoms that are most frequently reported, making it one of the most significant issues for the emergency physician, but it is frequently under-treated. Intravenous (IV), oral (PO), and intramuscular (IM) delivery are the standard methods for administering acute pain relief. Firstly, we compared the safety and efficacy of IN analgesia to other conventional routes of analgesia to assess if IN analgesia may be an alternative for the management of acute pain in ED. Secondly, we analyzed the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and rescue analgesia required. We performed a narrative review-based keywords in Pubmed/Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Controlled Trials Register, finding only twenty randomized Clinical trials eligible in the timeline 1992-2022. A total of 2098 patients were analyzed and compared to intravenous analgesia, showing no statistical difference in adverse effects. In addition, intranasal analgesia also has a rapid onset and quick absorption. Fentanyl and ketamine are two intranasal drugs that appear promising and may be taken simply and safely while providing effective pain relief. Intravenous is simple to administer, non-invasive, rapid onset, and quick absorption; it might be a viable choice in a variety of situations to reduce patient suffering or delays in pain management.

The Efficacy of Patient Controlled Analgesia for Acute Non Traumatic Abdominal Pain in Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION: Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) is an intravenous selfadministration of small doses of opioids (such as morphine) using a programmable pump, The goal of PCA is to efficiently reduce patients’ pain at patient's preferred dose and schedule. Thus, we conducted a study to compare patient PCA morphine with intravenous bolus morphine for acute abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised, non-blinded clinical trial was conducted in patients presented with severe acute non traumatic abdominal pain of less than 24 hours requiring opioid analgesic based on numerical pain score of more than seven at triage. The primary outcome was visual analogue pain score (VAS) recorded at 0, 30th, 60th and 120th minutes during the management in the ED and after admission to wards, and the secondary outcomes were total dosage of morphine used and degree of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 62 participants who fulfilled study criteria were randomized into PCA morphine group or bolus morphine group. The average amount of analgesic used for bolus morphine group was lower compared to PCA morphine (4.23 mg)(s.d 1.89 vs 5.29 mg)(s.d 2.16) (p=0.027). Despite of significant VAS score changes within group analysis, between group repeated measure ANOVA (RMA) VAS score analysis was not statistically significant. [Bolus group (6.7+2.03) compared to PCA group (5.83 + 2.38)](p=0.089). Patient satisfaction was statistically significant for the PCA group [PCA (1.65+0.709) compared to bolus group (2.23+0.920)](p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in pain score reduction between PCA and intravenous bolus of morphine for the management of severe acute non traumatic abdominal pain in ED. However, PCA provided more patient satisfaction and should be considered as an alternative modality of acute pain management in ED.

The study of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management and control in emergency departments

BackgroundGiven the importance and pivotal role of nurses in pain management and control, this study was conducted to determine the nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward in emergency departments.MethodsThis study was designed and conducted as a descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study. Nurses’ attitude and knowledge towards pain management and control and relationship between their demographic characteristics have been assessed. Nurse Attitude Survey (NAS) and Pain management and control principles assessment Test (PMPAT) questionnaires were used.ResultsTotally 400 volunteers, including 148 (37.2%) male and 250 (62.8%) female nurses recruited from 23 hospitals in East Azerbaijan, Iran, with a mean age of 30.88 years (± 6.04 SD) and age range between 22 and 53 years old. The crude mean score of participants’ knowledge of pain management and control was 12.51 (± 2.77 SD), and standardized mean score was 40.34 (± 8.92 SD), which was low at 84.8% and moderate in 15.3% of the participants. Older nurses and nurses who previously participated in pain retraining courses had significantly less knowledge about pain management and control (r= -0.104, P = 0.038), and (r= -0.148, P = 0.003) respectively. The crude mean score of participants’ attitudes toward pain control and management was 15.22 (± 2.56 SD), and standardized mean score was 60.87 (± 10.26 SD). Nurses’ attitudes have become more negative with the increase of their work experience (r = -0.168, P = 0.001), and previously participation in pain retraining courses (r =-0.207, P < 0.001). Older nurses and highly educated nurses had significantly more negative attitudes towards pain control and management (r = -0.153, P = 0.002), and (r= -0.126, P = 0.005), respectively.ConclusionsThe current study revealed that pain management and control knowledge in most emergency nurses was low, and most of them had a moderate attitude. We need more scientific and comprehensive pain management and control training courses to improve knowledge and attitude among health workers and nurses.

Safety of nurse-directed triage intranasal fentanyl protocol for acute pain management in a European pediatric emergency department: A retrospective observational analysis.

Nurse-directed pain protocols for intranasal fentanyl administration are not widely implemented in European (EU) pediatric emergency departments (PED). Barriers include perceived safety concerns for intranasal (IN) fentanyl. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with a nurse-directed triage IN fentanyl protocol with a focus on safety in a tertiary EU PED. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient records of children aged 0-16 years who received nurse-directed IN fentanyl between January 2019 and December 2021 at the PED of the University Children's Hospital of Bern, Switzerland. Extracted data points included demographics, presenting complaint, pain score, IN fentanyl dosage, concomitant pain medication use, and adverse events. A total of 314 patients were identified with ages ranging from 9 months to 15 years. The main indication for nurse-directed fentanyl administration was musculoskeletal pain due to trauma (n = 284, 90%). Mild adverse events (vertigo) were reported in two patients (0.6%), without a correlation to concomitant pain medication or protocol violation. The only reported severe adverse event of syncope and hypoxia in a 14-year-old adolescent occurred in a setting where the institutional nurse-directed protocol was violated. In accordance with previous studies outside of Europe, our data support the case that when appropriately used, nurse-directed IN fentanyl is a safe potent opioid analgesic for pediatric acute pain management. We strongly encourage the introduction of nurse-directed triage fentanyl protocols Europe-wide in order to provide effective and adequate acute pain management in children.

397 Assessment of Sociodemographic Disparities in Emergency Department Pain Management

397 Assessment of Sociodemographic Disparities in Emergency Department Pain Management

Nurses' Perceptions of the Management of Acute Pain in Emergency Departments: Cross-sectional Study.

This study aimed to describe registered nurses' perceptions of acute pain management in emergency departments. The study design was a cross-sectional survey carried out in accordance with Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. One hundred one nurses from 5 different emergency departments participated in the survey. Data were analyzed using descriptive methods, nonparametric tests, and principal component analysis. Continuing education was significantly related to pain management. Nurses who had received continuing pain management education thought more often that challenges in pain management impact patients' acute pain management than those who had not received education. Nurses reported that patients received inadequate pain medication. The most used nonpharmacological methods were ice therapy and postural care. The nurses reported that music and conversation with the patient ameliorated the patients' acute pain. Nurses stated that their lack of knowledge concerning pain management and workload affected their acute pain management. Study results emphasize the need to develop ongoing pain management education for registered nurses and in addition to further research of nonpharmacological alleviation method in emergency departments.

Emergency nurses perceived barriers to effective pain management at emergency department in Amhara region referral hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia, 2021. Multi-center cross sectional study

BackgroundQuality of pain management in emergency departments may be affected by nurses' perceived barriers. Poorly managed pain may lead to altered physiological and psychological function which affect patients’ quality of life as well as increase costs to the health care system. ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess emergency nurse's perceived barriers to pain management and associated factors at emergency departments, 2021. MethodsA multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted with 153 nurses from eight emergency departments from May1-May 30, 2021 with semi-structured questionnaire. All volunteer nurses were included. Epi-info version 7 and SPSS version 20.0 were used for data entry and analysis respectively. We used descriptive statistics to report results of the study in the form of text and table. Student t-test, one way ANOVA and Post hoc test were applied to assess relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the participants with perceived barriers. ResultOf the 20 items, overcrowding 3.24 ± 0.9, nursing workload 3.16 ± 1.03, and lack of pain management guidelines/protocol2.5 ± 1.15 were the highest reported barriers to pain management at an emergency department. In addition, years of work experience as emergency nurses≤1 (p-value = 0.01), BSC level of education (p-value = 0.04), married (p-value = 0.04) and frequency of training ≤ (p-value = 0.02) were significantly associated with nurses perceived barriers on pain management. Conclusionand Recommendation: Overcrowding, nurses’ workload, absence of pain management tool, year of experience as emergency nurse ≤1, married, BSC nurses and frequency of training≤1 were the perceived barriers to pain management in the emergency department. The stakeholders in each facility should make an effort to increase the ratio of nurses to emergency patients. Professionals should develop local pain assessment and management protocol. Training should be given regularly and the opportunity of education should be maximized.

Approach to Cancer Pain Management in Emergency Departments: Comparison of General and Oncology Based Settings.

Cancer-related pain constitutes a dominant reason for admission to emergency services, and a significant patient and healthcare challenge. Evidence points to the rising prevalence of opioid misuse in this patient group. We sought to compare drug delivery in an oncology-dedicated emergency department (OED) and a general emergency department (GED) within the same hospital. As such, we obtained patient and drug-related data for OED and GED during a designated three-month period, and compared them using Fisher’s exact test, chi-square tests and the Mann-Whitney test. In total, 584 patients had 922 visits to emergency services (OED n = 479; GED n = 443), and were given 1478 drugs (OED n = 557; GED n = 921). Pain was a prominent chief complaint among visitors to the OED (17%) and GED (21%). Approximately a fifth of all drugs used were analgesics (OED—18.5%; GED—20.4%), however, in the GED, 51.6% (n = 97) were used for non-pain-related admissions, compared with 33.0% (n = 34) in OED. Opioid usage significantly differed between emergency settings. The GED administered three times as many intravenous opioids (p <0.001), a narrower spectrum of oral and intravenous drugs (p = 0.003) and no rapid-acting opioids, significantly fewer pain adjuvants (10.9% versus 18.7%, p < 0.001), and, finally, non-guideline-recommended drugs for pain, such as meperidine and benzodiazepines. Taken together, compared with the GED, the management of cancer-related pain in the OED was more personalized, and characterized by fewer intravenous opioids, enhanced diversity in drug type, route and method of delivery. Efforts should be directed toward reduction of disparities in the treatment of cancer pain in emergency settings.

Pain management in oncology-dedicated and general emergency departments.

e24076 Background: Cancer-related pain constitutes a dominant reason for admission to emergency services, and a significant patient and healthcare challenge. Evidence points to the rising prevalence of opioid misuse in this patient group. We sought to compare drug delivery in an oncology-dedicated emergency department (OED) and a general emergency department (GED) within the same hospital. Methods: Electronic files of patients with cancer seeking emergency services in a three-month period were obtained from the hospital registry. Data on patient demographics and drug-related characteristics were determined. Drug administration was compared between groups and thereafter according to admission types, using Fisher’s exact test, chi-square test and Mann-Whitney test. Results: In total, 584 patients had 922 visits to emergency services (OED n = 479; GED n = 443), and were administered 1815 drugs (OED n = 825; GED n = 990). Patient demographics and admission types were balanced between groups. Pain was the most common chief complaint (17% OED; 21% GED). In the OED, 12.5% of drugs were direct analgesics, compared with 19% in the GED. Opioids were prescribed more often in the GED than the OED (p = 0.008), significant for both pain related and non-pain related admissions, notably gastrointestinal and infectious conditions. Treatment in the GED was associated with delivery of three times as many intravenous opioids (p &lt; 0.001), a narrower spectrum in selection of oral and intravenous opioids (p = 0.003) and non-opioid analgesics, lower usage of pain adjuvants and rapid-acting opioids (p = 0.003), and finally, the administration of agents not recommended for cancer pain treatment, such as meperidine and benzodiazepines (p = 0.003). Similar utilization of resuscitative fluids, gastrointestinal agents and antiemetics was observed between groups, with larger variation in drug choice in the OED (p = 0.001). The OED showed greater usage of bisphosphonates and growth factors; conversely, antibiotics, blood products, clotting agents, antihypertensive and diabetic drugs, predominated in the GED. Conclusions: Compared to the GED, management of cancer-related pain in the OED is characterized by fewer opioids, enhanced diversity in drug type, route and method of delivery. Emergency services should be incorporated in cancer programs to promote safe and effective urgent care.

Substance use history is associated with lower opioid use for emergency department pain management.

In the current national opioid crisis, where 10% of the US population has or has had a substance use disorder (SUD), emergency department (ED) clinicians are challenged when treating pain in the ED and when prescribing pain medications to these patients on discharge as there is concern for contributing to the cycle of addiction. The objective of this study was to examine whether acute pain is treated differently in patients with and without current or past SUD by quantifying the amount of opioid analgesia given in the ED and prescribed on discharge. Retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to a 60,000-visit tertiary referral ED with acute fracture between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019. The primary exposure was indication of SUD (SUD+) versus those without SUD (SUD-). The primary outcome was receipt of opioids in the ED, and the secondary outcome was opioids prescribed at discharge. 117 matched pairs (n = 234) were included in the sample. Overall, 53.4% and 62.4% of patients received opioids in the ED or a prescription for opioids, respectively. Opioid receipt in the ED was lower among SUD+ patients compared to SUD- patients (48.7% and 58.1%, respectively; aOR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.14, 0.77). Similarly, receipt of a prescription for opioids was lower among SUD+ patients compared to SUD- patients (56.4% and 68.4%, respectively; aOR: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.26, 0.95). Overall, ED clinicians gave opioids less frequently to SUD+ patients in the ED and on discharge from the ED compared to SUD- patients with acute pain secondary to acute fracture.

Impact of Prehospital Pain Management on Emergency Department Management of Injured Children

Objective Provision of analgesia for injured children is challenging for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians. Little is known about the effect of prehospital analgesia on emergency department (ED) care. We aimed to determine the impact of prehospital pain interventions on initial ED pain scale scores, timing and dosing of ED analgesia for injured patients transported by EMS. Methods This is a planned, secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort of children with actual or suspected injuries transported to one of 11 PECARN-affiliated EDs from July 2019-April 2020. Using Wilcoxon rank sum for continuous variables and chi-square testing for categorical variables, we compared the change in EMS-to-ED pain scores and timing and dosing of ED-administered opioid analgesia in those who did and those who did not receive prehospital pain interventions. Results We enrolled 474 children with complete prehospital and ED pain management data. Prehospital interventions were performed on 262/474 (55%) of injured children and a total of 88 patients (19%) received prehospital opioids. Children who received prehospital opioids with or without adjunctive non-pharmacologic pain management experienced a greater reduction in pain severity and were more likely to receive ED opioids in higher doses earlier and throughout their ED care. Non-pharmacologic pain interventions alone did not impact ED care. Conclusions We demonstrate that prehospital opioid analgesia is associated with both a significant reduction in pain severity at ED arrival and the administration of higher doses of opioid analgesia earlier and throughout ED care.

Pain management in adults during long-bone fracture reduction in the Gaza Strip: a clinical audit

BackgroundOngoing protests in Gaza have led to numerous injuries, including long-bone fractures. We investigated assessment of pain severity and strategies for pain management in the emergency department. As no local guidelines exist, delivered care was compared with the guidance of the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). MethodsA clinical audit was conducted at the emergency department in Dar Al Shifa Medical Complex, Gaza, among patients who attended the emergency department with acute long-bone fractures between April 15 and July 15, 2018. Data were collected on pain assessment methods and strategies for pain management and analgesia administration. Ethics approval was obtained from the Palestinian Ministry of Health. The purpose of the audit was explained to patients and their written consent was obtained before inclusion. FindingsOf 79 patients invited to participate, 50 gave consent. 25 patients (50%) were aged 16–24 years, 20 (40%) 25–64 years, and five (10%) 65 years and older. Structured pain assessments were performed in only three patients (6%). No analgesia was administered to patients in the emergency department, except for two patients (4%) received infiltration of lidocaine as analgesia for haematoma. InterpretationNo local guidelines for acute pain management in emergency departments exist in the Gaza Strip. Clinical practice showed no adherence to international standards, such as the NICE guidelines for pain management. Factors contributing to such poor management might be large numbers of patients presenting at the time during conflict and protests and that only one room was available in the Shifa’ Medical Complex emergency department for examining, assessment, prescribing, and cast application. A limitation of the study is the small sample size is relatively small, but strengths were the 3-month period and prospective enrolment in the emergency department. FundingNone.

Emergency Nurse Perceptions of Pain and Opioids in the Emergency Department

The opioid crisis is a national health emergency with immense morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic cost. Emergency department (ED) pain management is tightly linked to the issue of opioid use disorder (OUD), because opioid exposure is necessary for development of OUD. Emergency nurses are on the frontlines of this complex problem, yet little, if any, attention has been paid to the role they play in the prevention and management of either pain or OUD in this unique and important setting. A framework that conceptualizes and optimizes emergency nurses as change agents in the opioid epidemic is urgently needed. While ED pain management and OUD prevention is dependent on the entire care team, this innovative study qualitatively characterizes emergency nurse perceptions of pain management, OUD prevention, and their potential role in each. Content analysis produced 14 categories that were clustered into two themes, “nurses influence ED pain management” and “adjustments in ED pain management”, and an overarching message that “pain management depends on the care team.” By generating a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the role played by emergency nurses, our findings provide essential insights into potential interventions and frameworks.

Observational, Retrospective Evaluation of a New Nurse-Initiated Emergency Department Pain Management Protocol

BackgroundTriage nurses are important in pain management and in early relief of pain among patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). AimsTo assess a new nurse-initiated pain management protocol, without the requirement for medical prescription, wich was implemented in October 2016 for patients with moderate or severe pain in the ED. It allows the administration of oral acetaminophen and oral oxycodone chlorydrate during the first evaluation of the patient by a nurse and eliminates the use of codeine or tramadol. MethodsWe conducted a comparative, single-center, retrospective study that looked at the outcomes of a new nursing protocol for patients aged ≥16 years with moderate to severe pain. The primary outcome was the percentage of increase of analgesics delivered by the nurse. ResultsA total of 756 patients were included: 377 before and 379 after protocol implementation. Oral analgesic use on admission increased from 44.3% to 57.8% (p < .001), and from 50.2% to 76.6% among patients with severe pain (p < .001). Strong opioid analgesic administration increased from 2.1% to 41.2%. This increase was also observed among those with moderate pain (1.4% to 13.3%; p < .001) and those with severe pain (2.6% to 62.6%; p < .001). Analgesic prescriptions added by the clinician decreased from 28.6% to 21.4% (p = .028). ConclusionsWe observed an increase in analgesic administration after the implementation of a new nurse-initiated pain treatment protocol, especially an increase in oral opioid analgesics, for patients with moderate to severe pain.

Discordance between patient-reported and actual emergency department pain management.

To determine patient knowledge of the nature of their pain management in the ED. This was a planned sub-study of data collected during a randomised, controlled trial of the nature of the informed consent process in a single ED. Patients aged ≥18 years, with a triage pain score of ≥4, were enrolled. Forty-eight hours post-ED discharge, patients were asked if they had declined analgesia or if a range of pain management options had been administered. The primary outcome was discordance between the patient report and the ED report (proportion of cases where these reports differed). Outcome data were collected on 655 patients. There was significant discordance for all variables examined (P < 0.001). Discordance for patients declining analgesia was lowest at 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-11.4). Discordance for administration of pain management 'other' than analgesia was highest at 32.6% (95% CI 29.0-36.4). Discordance for the administration of oral analgesia or 'any' analgesia was 17.1% (95% CI 14.3-20.3) and 14.4% (95% CI 11.8-17.3), respectively. For both of these outcomes, patients with chest pain and lower triage pain scores were more likely to report discordant responses. With the exception of 'other' pain management, smaller proportions of patients incorrectly reported not receiving management than incorrectly reporting that they did receive it. Patients are often unaware of the nature of their pain management. They are most often unaware of management other than analgesia. Patients with chest pain and lower triage pain scores had the least knowledge of their pain management.

Planning Development Level of Evidence Pain Management in Pre-hospital Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Regarding pre-hospital pain management focus on the emergency department, safety of analgesics used is one of the concerned areas to be developed clearly. However, the current level of evidence in pre-hospital pain management of injured patients, focusing on the safety and effect of pre-hospital analgesia has not been explored. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of evidence in pre-hospital pain management of injured patients, focusing on the safety and effect of pre-hospital analgesia. Methods: A systematic review was performed in this study with inclusion criteria adult-elderly injured patients in pre-hospital setting and used analgesic agents. Articles were sourced from electronic database Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Springer Link and ProQuest, which were searched to identify all the relevant articles published over the last five years in English. Fifteen studies were included are qualified as articles assessment with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Results: Nine studies were Randomized Control Trial, two studies cross-sectional and retrospective, and one study prospective descriptive and cohort. The result showed that many types of analgesic are used or planned in emergency areas, such as morphine, ketamine, fentanyl, NSAID with different route intravenous, intramuscular and subcutaneous with safety and monitoring continuously by healthcare professionals. Conclusion: The use of pre-hospital analgesia for injured patient in pre-hospital setting is commonly used by health workers according to pain management standard and guidelines; planning developments are needed for safety and management as a concern for focus on quality of pain management status.