Prehospital paths and hospital arrival time of patients with acute coronary syndrome or stroke, a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a presumed diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke may have had contact with several healthcare providers prior to hospital arrival. The aim of this study was to describe the various prehospital paths and the effect on time delays of patients with ACS or stroke. METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients with presumed ACS or stroke who may choose to contact four different types of health care providers. Questionnaires were completed by patients, general practitioners (GP), GP cooperatives, ambulance services and emergency departments (ED). Additional data were retrieved from hospital registries. RESULTS: Two hundred two ACS patients arrived at the hospital by 15 different paths and 243 stroke patients by ten different paths. Often several healthcare providers were involved (60.8 % ACS, 95.1 % stroke). Almost half of all patients first contacted their GP (47.5 % ACS, 49.4 % stroke). Some prehospital paths were more frequently used, e.g. GP (cooperative) and ambulance in ACS, and GP or ambulance and ED in stroke. In 65 % of all events an ambulance was involved. Median time between start of symptoms and hospital arrival for ACS patients was over 6 h and for stroke patients 4 h. Of ACS patients 47.7 % waited more than 4 h before seeking medical advice compared to 31.6 % of stroke patients. Median time between seeking medical advice to arrival at hospital was shortest in paths involving the ambulance only (60 min ACS, 54 min stroke) or in combination with another healthcare provider (80 to 100 min ACS, 99 to 106 min stroke). CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital paths through which patients arrived in hospital are numerous and often complex, and various time delays occurred. Delays depend on the entry point of the health care system, and dialing the emergency number seems to be the best choice. Since reducing patient delay is difficult and noticeable differences exist between various prehospital paths, further research into reasons for these different entry choices may yield possibilities to optimize paths and reduce overall time delay.

Pain management in the emergency chain: the use and effectiveness of pain management in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain.

OBJECTIVE: While acute musculoskeletal pain is a frequent complaint in emergency care, its management is often neglected, placing patients at risk for insufficient pain relief. Our aim is to investigate how often pain management is provided in the prehospital phase and emergency department (ED) and how this affects pain relief. A secondary goal is to identify prognostic factors for clinically relevant pain relief. DESIGN: This prospective study (PROTACT) includes 697 patients admitted to ED with musculoskeletal extremity injury. Data regarding pain, injury, and pain management were collected using questionnaires and registries. RESULTS: Although 39.9% of the patients used analgesics in the prehospital phase, most patients arrived at the ED with severe pain. Despite the high pain prevalence in the ED, only 35.7% of the patients received analgesics and 12.5% received adequate analgesic pain management. More than two-third of the patients still had moderate to severe pain at discharge. Clinically relevant pain relief was achieved in only 19.7% of the patients. Pain relief in the ED was higher in patients who received analgesics compared with those who did not. Besides analgesics, the type of injury and pain intensity on admission were associated with pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: There is still room for improvement of musculoskeletal pain management in the chain of emergency care. A high percentage of patients were discharged with unacceptable pain levels. The use of multimodal pain management or the implementation of a pain management protocol might be useful methods to optimize pain relief. Additional research in these areas is needed.

A nurse-initiated pain protocol in the ED improves pain treatment in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain.

While acute musculoskeletal pain is a frequent complaint, its management is often neglected. An implementation of a nurse-initiated pain protocol based on the algorithm of a Dutch pain management guideline in the emergency department might improve this. A pre-post intervention study was performed as part of the prospective PROTACT follow-up study. During the pre- (15 months, n = 504) and post-period (6 months, n = 156) patients' self-reported pain intensity and pain treatment were registered. Analgesic provision in patients with moderate to severe pain (NRS ≥4) improved from 46.8% to 68.0%. Over 10% of the patients refused analgesics, resulting into an actual analgesic administration increase from 36.3% to 46.1%. Median time to analgesic decreased from 10 to 7 min (P < 0.05), whereas time to opioids decreased from 37 to 15 min (P < 0.01). Mean pain relief significantly increased to 1.56 NRS-points, in patients who received analgesic treatment even up to 2.02 points. The protocol appeared to lead to an increase in analgesic administration, shorter time to analgesics and a higher clinically relevant pain relief. Despite improvements, suffering moderate to severe pain at ED discharge was still common. Protocol adherence needs to be studied in order to optimize pain management.