Stroke patient's alarm choice: General practitioner or emergency medical services.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke patients should be treated as soon as possible since the benefit of reperfusion therapies is highly time-dependent. The proportion of patients eligible for reperfusion therapy is still limited, as many patients do not immediately alarm healthcare providers. The choice of healthcare system entrance influences the time of arrival in the hospital. Therefore, we assessed differences in these choices to obtain insight for strategies to reduce time delays in acute stroke patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with suspected acute stroke admitted to the participating hospitals received a questionnaire. We assessed differences between patients who initially alarmed the general practitioner (GP) and patients who directly alarmed the emergency medical services (EMS). Additionally, we assessed regional differences and patient trajectories after medical help was sought. RESULTS: We included 163 patients. Most patients alarmed the GP as primary healthcare provider (n = 104; 64%), and median onset-to-door times were longer in these patients (466 minutes [IQR 149-1586]) compared to patients directly alarming the EMS (n = 59; 36%) (90 minutes [IQR 45-286]). This was even more pronounced in less densely populated areas. Patients who alarmed the GP first, more often had patient delay >15 minutes, hesitated to burden healthcare providers and underestimated symptomatology. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that patients who alarmed the GP first instead of the EMS differed in several factors that are potentially modifiable. Strategies to achieve reduction of vital prehospital time delays and to improve patient outcome are optimizing public awareness campaigns and GP triage along with adjusting current guidelines by enabling and focusing on immediate involvement of the EMS once acute stroke is suspected.

Painful Discrimination in the Emergency Department: Risk Factors for Underassessment of Patients' Pain by Nurses.

INTRODUCTION: Unrelieved acute musculoskeletal pain continues to be a reality of major clinical importance, despite advancements in pain management. Accurate pain assessment by nurses is crucial for effective pain management. Yet inaccurate pain assessment is a consistent finding worldwide in various clinical settings, including the emergency department. In this study, pain assessments between nurses and patients with acute musculoskeletal pain after extremity injury will be compared to assess discrepancies. A second aim is to identify patients at high risk for underassessment by emergency nurses. METHODS: The prospective PROTACT study included 539 adult patients who were admitted to the emergency department with musculoskeletal pain. Data on pain assessment and characteristics of patients including demographics, pain, and injury, psychosocial, and clinical factors were collected using questionnaires and hospital registry. RESULTS: Nurses significantly underestimated patients' pain with a mean difference of 2.4 and a 95% confidence interval of 2.2-2.6 on an 11-points numerical rating scale. Agreement between nurses' documented and patients' self-reported pain was only 27%, and 63% of the pain was underassessed. Pain was particularly underassessed in women, in persons with a lower educational level, in patients who used prehospital analgesics, in smokers, in patients with injury to the lower extremities, in anxious patients, and in patients with a lower urgency level. DISCUSSION: Underassessment of pain by emergency nurses is still a major problem and might result in undertreatment of pain if the emergency nurses rely on their assessment to provide further pain treatment. Strategies that focus on awareness among nurses of which patients are at high risk of underassessment of pain are 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.

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.

Epidemiological characteristics and societal burden of varicella zoster virus in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Varicella and herpes zoster are both caused by varicella zoster virus (VZV) infection or reactivation and may lead to complications associated with a (severe) societal burden. Because the epidemiology of VZV-related diseases in the Netherlands remains largely unknown or incomplete, the main objective of this study was to study the primary care incidence, associated complications and health care resource use. METHODS: We investigated the incidence of VZV complications in the Dutch general practitioner (GP) practices and pharmacies in a retrospective population-based cohort study (2004-2008) based on longitudinal GP data including free text fields, hospital referral and discharge letters from approximately 165,000 patients. RESULTS: The average annual incidence of varicella GP-consultations was 51.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 44.4-58.7) overall; 465.5 per 10,000 for 0-1 year-olds; 610.8 per 10,000 for 1-4 year-olds; 153.5 per 10,000 for 5-9 year-olds; 8,3 per 10,000 for >10 year olds. When only ICPC coded diagnoses were analyzed the incidence was 27% lower. The proportion of complications among varicella patients was 34.9%. Most frequently complications were upper respiratory tract infections. Almost half of the varicella patients received medication. The referral rate based on GP consultations was 1.7%. The average annual incidence of herpes zoster GP-consultations was 47.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 40.6-54.4). The incidence increased with age; 32.8 per 10,000 for <60 year-olds; 93.1 per 10,000 for 60-64 year-olds and 113.2 per 10,000 for >65 year olds. When estimating herpes zoster incidence only on ICPC coded information, the incidence was 28% lower. The complication rate of herpes zoster was 32.9%. Post herpetic neuralgia was seen most often. Of patients diagnosed with herpes zoster 67.8% received medication. The referral rate based on GP consultations was 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: For varicella the highest incidence of GP-consultations was found in 1-4 year-olds, for herpes zoster in the >65 years olds. The occurrence of complications was not age-dependent but varies per complication. When estimating incidence of VZV-related diseases in primary care, based on diagnostic codes only, one should be aware of a gross underestimation of the incidence. Our analysis may have important implications for the outcomes of upcoming cost-effectiveness analyses on VZV vaccination.