Search

Background: Acute pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) attendance. Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) pain management audits have shown national variation and room for improvement. Previous evidence suggests that children receive less satisfactory pain management than adults., Methods: Prescription of analgesia in emergency medicine is a cross-sectional observational study of consecutive patients presenting to 12 National Health Service EDs with an isolated long bone fracture and/or dislocation, and was carried out between 2015 and 2017. Using the recommendations in the RCEM Best Practice Guidelines, pain management in ED was assessed for differences of age (adults vs children) and hospital type (children's vs all patients)., Results: From the total 8346 patients, 38% were children (median age 8 years). There was better adherence to the RCEM guidance for children than adults (24% (766/3196) vs 11% (579/5123)) for the combined outcome of timely assessment, pain score and appropriate analgesia. In addition, children were significantly more likely than adults to receive analgesia appropriate to the pain score (of those with a recorded pain score 67% (1168/1744) vs 52% (1238/2361)). Children's hospitals performed much better across all reported outcomes compared with general hospitals., Conclusions: In contrast to previous studies, children with a limb fracture/dislocation are more likely than adults to have a pain score documented and to receive appropriate analgesia. Unexpectedly, children's EDs performed better than general EDs in relation to timely and appropriate analgesia but the reasons for this are not apparent from the present study., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JD reports personal fees from Royal Berkshire Hospital during this analysis of the study and personal fees from Reading University during the conduct of the study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Venous sampling for blood gas analysis has been suggested as an alternative to arterial sampling in order to reduce pain. The main objective was to compare pain induced by venous and arterial sampling and to assess whether the type of sampling would affect clinical management or not., Methods: We performed an open-label randomised multicentre prospective study in four French EDs during a 4-week period. Non-hypoxaemic adults, whose medical management required blood gas analysis, were randomly allocated using a computer-generated randomisation list stratified by centres with an allocation ratio of 1:1 using random blocks to one of the two arms: venous or arterial sampling. The primary outcome was the maximal pain during sampling, using the visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes pertained to ease of sampling as rated by the nurse drawing the blood, and physician satisfaction regarding usefulness of biochemical data., Results: 113 patients were included: 55 in the arterial and 58 in the venous sampling group. The mean maximal pain was 40.5 mm±24.9 mm and 22.6 mm±20.2 mm in the arterial group and the venous group, respectively, accounting for a mean difference of 17.9 mm (95% CI 9.6 to 26.3) (p<0.0001). Ease of blood sampling was greater in the venous group as compared with the arterial group (p=0.02). The usefulness of the results, evaluated by the prescriber, did not significantly differ (p=0.25)., Conclusions: Venous blood gas is less painful for patients than ABG in non-hypoxaemic patients. Venous blood gas should replace ABG in this setting., Trial Registration Number: NCT03784664., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Pain management in the ED is often suboptimal, with many patients not receiving analgesia. We aimed to determine why some patients refuse it, why others do not receive it, and whether these variables impact on patient satisfaction with their pain management., Methods: We undertook a prospective, observational study in a large, Australian, tertiary referral ED (February-May 2017). A convenience sample of consecutive adult patients with a triage pain score of ≥4 were examined. Data were collected from the medical record and the treating nurses. At follow-up at least 48 hours postdischarge, patients were asked if they received analgesia in the ED (if not, then why not) and how satisfied they were with their pain management (very dissatisfied/dissatisfied/slightly dissatisfied/slightly satisfied/satisfied/very satisfied). The primary outcome was why patients refuse analgesia., Results: Of the 651 enrolled patients, 171 (26.3%) did not receive analgesia; for 30 (17.5%), patients and their nurses agreed that analgesia was refused. Patients mainly refused analgesia because their pain was not bad enough, they had recent analgesia intake, and concerns about side effects and interactions. Patients who received analgesia were more likely to be 'very satisfied' with their pain management (difference in proportions 10.8%, 95% CI 2.1 to 19.4). The satisfaction of patients who refused analgesia and those who did not receive analgesia for other reasons did not differ., Conclusion: Patient refusal is the most common reason for patients not receiving analgesia. Analgesia receipt is associated with greater patient satisfaction. However, a patient's knowledge of their analgesia receipt status may be incorrect. Disregard of the reasons for patients not receiving analgesia may underestimate the number offered analgesia., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To determine if intravenous paracetamol was superior to oral paracetamol as an adjunct to opioids in the management of moderate to severe pain in the ED setting., Methods: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial was conducted at a single academic tertiary care ED. Adult patients with moderate to severe pain were randomly assigned to receive either the intravenous paracetamol or oral paracetamol. The primary outcome was Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain reduction at 30 min. A clinically significant change in pain was defined as 13 mm., Results: 87 participants were included in the final analysis, with a median age of 43.5 years and 59.8% were female. Overall mean baseline VAS pain score was 67.9 mm (±16.0). Both formulations achieved a clinically significant mean pain score reduction at 30 min, with no significant difference between the groups with 16.0 mm (SD 19.1 mm) in the intravenous group and 14.6 mm (SD 26.4) in the oral group; difference -1.4 mm (95% CI -11.6 to 8.8, P=0.79). Secondary outcomes, including postintervention intravenous opioid administration, patient satisfaction, side effects and length of stay, did not differ between groups., Conclusions: Overall, there was a small but clinically significant decrease in pain in each group. No superiority was demonstrated in this trial with intravenous paracetamol compared with oral paracetamol in terms of efficacy of analgesia and no difference in length of stay, patient satisfaction, need for rescue analgesia or side effects., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To determine the patient and clinical variables associated with administration of any analgesia, nurse-initiated analgesia (NIA, prescribed and administered by a nurse) and early analgesia (within 30 min of presentation)., Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients who presented to a metropolitan ED in Melbourne, Australia, during July and August, 2013. The ED has an established NIA programme. Patients were included if they were aged 18 years or more and presented with a painful complaint. The study sample was randomly selected from a list of all eligible patients. Data were extracted electronically from the ED records and by explicit extraction from the medical record. Logistic regression models were constructed to assess associations with the three binary study end points., Results: 1289 patients were enrolled. Patients were less likely to receive any analgesia if they presented 08:00-15:59 hours (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98) or 16:00-24:00 hours (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.80) were triage category 5 (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.49) or required an interpreter (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.86). Patients were less likely to receive NIA or early analgesia if they were aged 56 years or more (OR 0.70 and 0.63; OR 0.57 and 0.21, respectively) or if they had received ambulance analgesia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.95; OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, respectively)., Conclusions: Patients who present during the daytime, have a triage category of 5 or require an interpreter are less likely to receive analgesia. Older patients and those who received ambulance analgesia are less likely to receive NIA or early analgesia., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: We aimed to provide pain advice ('The treatment of pain is very important and be sure to tell the staff when you have pain') as an intervention and evaluate its effect upon patient satisfaction. The purpose of this pilot trial was to ensure the design and methods of a future trial are sound, practicable and feasible., Method: We undertook a pilot, randomised, controlled, clinical intervention trial in a single ED. The control arm received standard care. The intervention arm received standard care plus pain advice from an independent investigator. All patients and treating ED staff were blinded to patient enrolment. Patient satisfaction with their pain management (six-point ordinal scale) was measured 48 h post-ED discharge, by a blinded researcher. The primary outcome was satisfaction with pain management., Results: Of the 280 and 275 patients randomised to the control and intervention arms, respectively, 196 and 215 had complete data, respectively. 77.6% (152/196) and 88.8% (191/215) of patients reported being provided with pain advice, respectively (difference 11.3% (95% CI 3.6 to 19.0)). The intervention was associated with absolute and relative increases in patient satisfaction of 6.3% and 14.2%, respectively. 91.3% (179/196) and 76.3% (164/215) of patients who were/were not very satisfied reported having received 'pain advice' (difference 15.0% (95% CI 7.6 to 22.5))., Conclusions: The intervention to provide pain advice resulted in a non-significant increase in patient satisfaction. A larger multicentre trial is feasible and is recommended to further explore the effects of provision of pain advice., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615000097549., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Fractures of the femur are common orthopaedic emergencies presenting to emergency departments (ED). Femoral nerve block (FNB) is a fast, safe and effective means of providing pain relief to these patients. With the aim to analysing the variation in current practice of giving FNB in patients with fractured femur in the UK, we carried out a telephonic national survey. Out of 252 EDs contacted, 230 departments participated in the survey (91% response rate). The survey showed that 74% EDs in the UK had access to ultrasound, but only 10% EDs gave FNB regularly under ultrasound guidance. In total, 46% of EDs gave FNB by blind technique. Therefore, ultrasound-guided FNB is an underutilised method of providing pain relief for fractured femur patients. The main reasons for not using ultrasound for FNB were: lack of training, participants' confidence in giving an effective and safe FNB block blindly and time constraints. The literature review suggests that ultrasound-guided FNB has a faster onset of action, is more effective and safer than the FNB given with nerve stimulator (NS) or blindly, and probably needs lower local anaesthetic dose. The use of NS for FNB in ED might not be practical because of the likelihood of the pain resulting from the movement of the affected limb due to the contraction of the muscles caused by nerve stimulation and because of additional training needed in using NS. The studies comparing FNB given using ultrasound or NS, or given blindly, have been done in the perioperative settings. To date, there has been no randomised controlled trial in ED setting comparing FNB given blindly or under ultrasound guidance. Such a study might have provided a good evidence for modifying the current practice of blind FNB.

Recurrent abdominal pain accounts for a significant proportion of attenders and high impact users in the emergency department. Due to the heterogeneity of presentation and the broad spectrum of possible causes, abdominal pain presents as a significant clinical challenge within the emergency department, particularly as distress and pain are commonly elevated. Patients in this group are routinely prescribed opiate-based interventions and repeated investigations in a 'better safe than sorry' culture which saturates the field of persistent physical symptoms. This approach is contributing to the growing problem, and fuelling a cycle of repeated attendance and failure to resolve. This article reviews the current clinical and psychophysiological understanding of recurrent abdominal pain, critiquing guidelines and approaches to diagnosis and management. We offer an alternative evidence-based biopsychosocial approach using the mnemonic 'ERROR', recommending five steps to assessment and clinical management of recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To test our hypothesis that a new modified VAS (mVAS) is superior and more objective than VAS in evaluating pain perception and treatment response between genders who have renal colic pain. Methods: The individuals in patient and control groups were first asked to mark the pain perceived during access of IV line (VASIV score). Then the patients with renal colic were asked to mark the pain they experienced before treatment (VASRC score) and at 15 and 30 minutes after the administration of the first analgesic drug. The modified VAS scores (mVAS score) were obtained by subtracting the VASIV score from VASRC score. Results: When VAS was used, the female patients had significantly higher level of pain at 0, 15, and 30th minutes than men (p = 0.012, p = 0.001, and p = 0.003, respectively). However, there was not any significant difference at 0 and 30th min between sexes while female patients had significantly higher level of pain scores only at 15th minute according to mVAS scores (p = 0.027). Conclusion: We think that the mVAS is superior and more objective than VAS in evaluating pain perception and abolished the difference in the perceived level of pain due to gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]