Need for pharmacological analgesia after cast immobilisation in children with bone fractures: an observational cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Bone fractures are a common reason for children and adolescents to seek evaluation in the ED. Little is known about the pain experienced after cast immobilisation and discharge from the ED and its optimal management. We aimed to investigate the administration of pharmacological analgesia in the first days after cast immobilisation and to identify possible influencing variables. METHODS: A prospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted at the ED of the children's hospital, Institute for Maternal and Child Health of Trieste, Italy, from October 2019 to June 2020. Patients aged 0-17 years with bone fractures were included. The primary outcome was the administration of analgesia during the 10 days following discharge, while secondary outcomes were the associated variables, including age, gender, fracture type and location, the mean limitation in usual activities and the frequency of re-evaluation at the ED for pain. Data were recorded through a questionnaire, completed by caregivers and collected by the researchers mainly through a telephone interview. The primary endpoint was evaluated as the ratio between the number of children who took at least one analgesic dose and the total enrolled children, while Χ2 or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess secondary outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 213 patients, mean age 10 years (IQR: 8-13), were enrolled. Among them, 137 (64.3%) did not take any analgesic during follow-up. Among children who were administered analgesia, 22 (28.9%) received it only on the first day, and 47 (61.8%) for less than 5 days. One hundred and sixty one patients (75.6%) did not report any limitation in usual activities because of pain. The administration of analgesia was not related to the child's age, gender or fracture site. Displaced fractures were associated with significantly more frequent analgesia being taken (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 21.0). CONCLUSION: Although some studies recommend scheduled analgesic treatment after discharge for bone fractures, this study would suggest analgesia on demand in children with non-displaced fractures, limiting scheduled analgesia to children with displaced fractures.

Sex-related differences in opioid administration in the emergency department: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Sex differences in pain experience and expression may influence ED pain management. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of sex on ED opioid administration. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre population-based observational cohort study using administrative data from Calgary's four EDs between 2017 and 2018. Eligible patients had a presenting complaint belonging to one of nine pain categories or an arrival pain score >3. We performed multivariable analyses to identify predictors of opioid administration and stratified analyses by age, pain severity and pain category. RESULTS: We studied 119 510 patients (mean age 47.4 years; 55.4% female). Opioid administration rates were similar for men and women. After adjusting for age, hospital site, pain category, ED length of stay and pain severity, male sex was not a predictor of opioid treatment (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). However, men were more likely to receive opioids in the categories of trauma (aOR=1.58, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.78), flank pain (aOR=1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.38), headache (aOR=1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34) and abdominal pain (aOR=1.11, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.18). Pain category appears to be a strong determinant of opioid administration, especially back pain (aOR=6.56, 95% CI 5.99 to 7.19) and flank pain (aOR=6.04, 95% CI 5.48 to 6.65). There was significant variability in opioid provision by ED site (aOR 0.76 to 1.24). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study demonstrated high variability in opioid use across different settings. Overall, men and women had similar likelihood of receiving opioids; however men with trauma, flank pain, headache and abdominal pain were much more likely to receive opioids. ED physicians should self-examine their analgesic practices with respect to possible sex biases, and departments should introduce evidence-based, indication-specific analgesic protocols to reduce practice variability and optimise opioid analgesia.

We Need to Talk About Codeine: an Implementation Study to reduce the number of Emergency Department patients discharged on high-strength co-codamol using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

BACKGROUND: The crisis of prescription opioid addiction in the USA is well-documented. Though opioid consumption per capita is lower in the UK, prescribing has increased dramatically in recent decades with an associated increase in deaths from prescription opioid overdose. At one Scottish Emergency Department high rates of prescribing of take-home co-codamol (30/500 mg) were observed, including for conditions where opioids are not recommended by national guidelines. An Implementation Science approach was adopted to investigate this. METHODS: A Behaviour Change Wheel analysis suggested several factors contributing to high opioid prescribing: poor awareness of codeine addiction risk, poor knowledge of NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines on common painful conditions, mistaken assumptions about patient expectations and ready access to a large stock of take-home co-codamol. Based on this analysis a combined Education/Persuasion intervention was implemented over a 1-month period (January 2019) reaching 93% of prescribers. An Environmental Restructuring intervention was introduced at 4 months, and co-codamol prescriptions were monitored over a 12-month follow-up period. Unplanned re-attendances and complaints related to analgesia were monitored as balancing measures. RESULTS: The Education/Persuasion intervention was associated with a 59% reduction in co-codamol prescribing that was maintained over 12 months. The Environmental Restructuring intervention was not associated with any further reduction in prescribing. No increase in unplanned re-attendances occurred during the study period and no complaints were received relating to pain control. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing incidence of prescription opioid addiction in the UK suggests the need for all clinicians who write opioid prescriptions to re-evaluate their practice. This study suggests that knowledge of addiction risk and prescribing guidelines is poor among Emergency Department prescribers. We show that a rapid and sustained reduction in prescribing of take-home opioids is feasible in a UK Emergency Department, and that this reduction was not associated with any increase in unplanned re-attendances or complaints related to analgesia.

Comparison of the efficacy of ketamine- propofol versus sodium thiopental-fentanyl in sedation: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Many sedative regimens have been studied with controversial efficiencies. This study tried to assess the desirable and adverse effects of sodium thiopental-fentanyl (TF) with ketamine-propofol (KP) for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department. METHODS: After signing written consent, patients were enrolled in this randomised double-blind trial to receive either KP or TF to reach the desired sedation level. The respiratory and haemodynamic complications, nausea and vomiting, recovery agitation, patient recall and satisfaction, provider satisfaction and recovery time were compared. RESULTS: Of the participants, 47 in the KP group and 49 in the TF group were enrolled. The mean and SD scores were 6.91±1.93 and 8.34±1.25 for patients' satisfaction and 7.55±1.54 and 8.65±1.00 for satisfaction of physicians performing the procedures in TF and KP groups, respectively (p=0.000). Moreover, 39 (79.59%) and 18 (38.29%) of patients declared that they had recalled the procedures in the TF and KP groups, respectively (p=0.000). Transient hypoxia was reported in 2.1% and 8.1% in the KP and TF groups leading to perform 4.2% vs 8.1% airway manoeuvres, respectively, without the need for endotracheal intubation or further admission. CONCLUSIONS: KP and TF combinations were effectively comparable although KP resulted in higher patient and provider satisfaction. This study did not detect a difference regarding adverse respiratory or haemodynamic effects. It is estimated that the TF combination can be potent and efficacious with possible low adverse events in procedural sedation.

Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS): a multicentre, single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely used in UK EDs. Titrated to an end point of sedation, it has a rapid effect but has been associated with adverse incidents. The use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol is not routine but may reduce the incidence of adverse incidents.The primary aims of this single-arm feasibility study were patient satisfaction and to establish recruitment rates for a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol TCI to bolus administration. METHODS: Four EDs in Scotland, UK, participated. Patients aged 18-65 years, with anterior shoulder dislocation, weight ≥ 50kg, fasted ≥ 90 min were screened. Patients underwent reduction of their dislocated shoulder using TCI propofol. The primary end point was patient satisfaction recorded on a Visual Analogue Scale. RESULTS: Between 3 April 2017 and 31 December 2018, 25 patients were recruited with a recruitment rate of 20% for the 16-month recruitment window, with a temporary pause to allow amendment of drug dosage.Two patients were excluded. Twenty achieved adequate sedation, defined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale (OAA/S) 3. Successful reduction was achieved in all adequately sedated. Patient satisfaction was documented in 14 patients, mean±SD of 97±9 and time to sedation was 25±8 min. No adverse events were recorded using the Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool. CONCLUSION: Propofol TCI was acceptable as a method of procedural sedation for patients. The lower than expected recruitment rates highlight the need for dedicated research support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03442803.

Prescription of analgesia in emergency medicine (POEM) secondary analysis: an observational multicentre comparison of pain relief provided to adults and children with an isolated limb fracture and/or dislocation.

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.

Reducing pain by using venous blood gas instead of arterial blood gas (VEINART): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

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.

Blunt chest trauma in the elderly: an expert practice review.

Trauma in the elderly (>65 years) is an increasingly common presentation to the ED. A fall from standing height is the most common mechanism after which such patients present, and rib fracture is the most common non-spinal fracture. Thoracic injury in patients aged over 65 is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are currently no universally applied guidelines for assessment, investigation and management of such patients. In this expert practice review, we discuss the evidence base and options for clinical management in this vulnerable patient group.

Assessment and management of recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department.

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.

Analgesia in the emergency department: why is it not administered?

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.

Paracetamol versus other analgesia in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Pain treatment in acute musculoskeletal injuries usually consists of paracetamol, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. It would be beneficial to determine whether paracetamol is as effective as other analgesics. The objective of this study was to evaluate available evidence regarding efficacy of paracetamol in these patients. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane and relevant trial registers were searched from inception to 14 February 2018 by two independent reviewers to detect all randomised studies with adult patients with acute minor musculoskeletal injuries treated with paracetamol as compared with other analgesics. There were no language or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcome was decrease in pain scores during the first 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included pain decrease beyond 24 hours, need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Seven trials were included, evaluating 2100 patients who were treated with paracetamol or NSAIDs or the combination of both as comparisons, of which only four studies addressed the primary outcome. No studies were found comparing paracetamol with opioids. There were no differences in analgesic effectiveness within and beyond 24 hours, nor in need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. Overall, quality of evidence was low. Because of methodological inconsistencies, a meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, paracetamol is as effective as NSAIDs or the combination of both in treating pain in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries in the acute setting. The quality of evidence is low.

Intravenous versus oral paracetamol for acute pain in adults in the emergency department setting: a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial.

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.

Ketamine procedural sedation in the emergency department of an urban tertiary hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe ketamine procedural sedations and associated adverse events in low-acuity and high-acuity patients in a resource-limited ED. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of ketamine procedural sedations at the Emergency Medical Department at the Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. We observed consecutive procedural sedations and recorded patient demographics, medications, vital signs, pulse oximetry, capnography and a priori defined adverse events (using standard definitions in emergency medicine sedation guidelines). All treatment decisions were at the discretion of the treating providers who were blinded to study measurements to simulate usual care. Data collection was unblinded if predefined safety parameters were met. For all significant adverse and unblinding events, ketamine causality was determined via review protocol. Additionally, providers and patients were assessed for sedation satisfaction. RESULTS: We observed 54 children (median 3 years, range 11 days-15 years) and 45 adults (median 33 years, range 18-79 years). The most common indications for ketamine were burn management in children (55.6%) and orthopaedic procedures in adults (68.9%). Minor adverse events included nausea/vomiting (12%), recovery excitation (11%) and one case of transient hypertension. There were nine (9%) patients who had decreased saturation readings (SpO2 ≤92%). There were three deaths, all in severely injured patients. After review protocol, none of the desaturations or patient deaths were thought to be caused by ketamine. No patient experienced ketamine-related laryngospasm, apnoea or permanent complications. Overall, ketamine was well tolerated and resulted in high patient and provider satisfaction. CONCLUSION: In this series of ketamine sedations in an urban, resource-limited ED, there were no serious adverse events attributable to ketamine.

Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Dutch emergency physicians: a prospective multicentre observational study of 1711 adults.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. RESULTS: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred (pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). CONCLUSION: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies.

Variables associated with administration of analgesia, nurse-initiated analgesia and early analgesia in the emergency department.

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.

Remifentanil for procedural sedation: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the performance characteristics of remifentanil as an agent of procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for adult and paediatric patients undergoing procedures similar to those executed in the ED. METHODS: We systematically reviewed electronically published literature, grey literature, conference proceedings and trial registries from 1946 to 2015. Outcome measures included PSA effectiveness, recovery time, patient safety and resource management. We performed narrative summary analyses. Heterogeneity among selected studies precluded meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found 1525 citations, reviewed 34 full manuscripts (kappa=0.64) and included 10 studies (kappa=0.71). Seven were randomised controlled trials and three studies took place in the ED. Included procedures were lumbar puncture (80), cardioversion (66), orthopaedic manipulation (63), incision and drainage (15), thoracostomy (8) and nasal packing (2). There was extensive variation in remifentanil dosing (0.15- 1.5 µg/kg), administration protocols and use of additional PSA drugs. All studies noted superior or equivalent sedation effectiveness compared withcontrols. Several studies, including all those performed in the ED, noted faster procedure completion or patient recovery with remifentanil compared with control groups. The most commonly reported adverse event was respiratory depression, especially in paediatric patients. All studies were found to carry significant risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of high-quality data on the use of remifentanil in the ED. Physicians should exert caution when using remifentanil in the absence of published standardised dosing protocols in light of frequently reported paediatric respiratory depression. However, PSA efficacy combined with faster recovery times merit ongoing investigations into its use.

Capnography for procedural sedation in the ED: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is commonplace in the ED. Previous studies have identified capnography as a reliable indicator of PSA-induced respiratory depression. This review investigates the potential effect on patient safety of the use of capnography in addition to standard monitoring for adult patients undergoing PSA in the ED. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched systematically for ED studies using capnography during PSA. Data extraction was performed by two independent authors. Using MedCalc V.13.3.3 and Meta-DiSc V.1.4, data were aggregated under the random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q-test and the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Of the 737 studies that were screened, 7 studies met the eligibility criteria, representing a total of 662 patients. The aggregate diagnostic accuracy for capnography identifying an adverse event included a diagnostic OR of approximately 6 (OR: 5.87; 95% CI 2.41 to 14.3; p<0.001), sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.87), specificity 0.6 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.64), negative likelihood ratio 0.3 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75) and positive likelihood ratio 1.89 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.34). There was a lack of statistical evidence for a difference in the proportion of adverse events detected when capnography was used in addition to standard monitoring (48.8% (95% CI 32.85 to 64.92)) compared with chance alone (50%). CONCLUSIONS: There is no firm evidence that capnography provides additional safety compared with standard monitoring alone during PSA in adults in the ED. There is a paucity of published research involving preoxygenated patients who remain on high-flow oxygen throughout PSA. Well-powered randomised controlled trials, employing an accepted adverse event reporting tool in such patients, are required. Until then, we advocate continued compliance with current professional recommendations for the use of capnography during PSA in adults in the ED.

The effect of provision of pain management advice on patient satisfaction with their pain management: a pilot, randomised, controlled trial (pain advice trial).

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.

Comparison of intravenous lidocaine versus morphine in alleviating pain in patients with critical limb ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Numerous drugs have been proposed to alleviate ischaemic limb pain, but none have been successful in relieving ischaemic pain thoroughly and rapidly. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine and intravenous morphine in decreasing pain in patients with critical limb ischaemia. METHODS: A randomised double-blind controlled trial was performed in 63 patients with critical limb ischaemia recruited from the emergency department between October 2012 and December 2013; 23 patients were excluded and the remainder were randomly divided into two groups of 20 patients. Patients in the lidocaine group received lidocaine infusion (2 mg/kg) while patients in the morphine group received morphine (0.1 mg/kg). Patients' visual analogue pain scores (VAS), from 0 to 10, were reported before and 15 and 30 min after the infusion. RESULTS: Before the infusion the mean±SD VAS score was 7.50±1.93 in the lidocaine group and 7.65±1.92 in the morphine group. At 15 min the mean±SD VAS score in the lidocaine group was lower than in the morphine group (5.75±1.77 vs 7.00±1.83; mean difference 1.25, 95% CI 0.095 to 2.405) and, at 30 min, the mean±SD VAS score in the lidocaine group was again lower (4.25±1.48 vs 6.50±1.73; mean difference 2.25, 95% CI 1.218 to 3.282). CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine may be helpful in decreasing ischaemic pain in patients with critical limb ischaemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.irct.irIRCT201210148872N2.