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.

The TARGET pain study: Lessons from a painful marathon.

This perspective article summarises the experience of conducting a multicentre research project. We describe expected and unexpected hurdles we experienced as well as suggesting possible solutions for researchers embarking on multicentre studies.

Best-practice pain management in the emergency department: A cluster-randomised, controlled, intervention trial.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide 'adequate analgesia' (which decreases the pain score by ≥2 and to <4 [0-10 scale]) and determine the effect on patient satisfaction. METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled, intervention trial in nine EDs. Patients with moderate pain (pain score of ≥4) were eligible for inclusion. The intervention was a range of educational activities to encourage staff to provide 'adequate analgesia'. It was introduced into five early intervention EDs between the 0 and 6 months time points and at four late intervention EDs between 3 and 6 months. At 0, 3 and 6 months, data were collected on demographics, pain scores, analgesia provided and pain management satisfaction 48 h post-discharge (6 point scale). RESULTS: Overall, 1317 patients were enrolled. Logistic regression (controlling for site and other confounders) indicated that, between 0 and 3 months, satisfaction increased significantly at the early intervention EDs (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4 [P < 0.01]) but was stable at the control EDs (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.3 [P = 0.35]). Pooling of data from all sites indicated that the proportion of patients very satisfied with their pain management increased from 42.9% immediately pre-intervention to 53.9% after 3 months of intervention (difference in proportions 11.0%, 95% CI 4.2 to 17.8 [P = 0.001]). Logistic regression of all data indicated that 'adequate analgesia' was significantly associated with patient satisfaction (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8 [P < 0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: The 'adequate analgesia' intervention significantly improved patient satisfaction. It provides a simple and efficient target in the pursuit of best-practice ED pain management.

Multidisciplinary assessment at triage: a new way forward.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a dual doctor and nurse triage system at a tertiary referral hospital. METHODS: Data were compared between periods of multidisciplinary triage and periods of standard triage. Data comparison was also made between rostered multidisciplinary triage shifts and non-multidisciplinary triage shifts. Staff satisfaction with the process was assessed. RESULTS: The percentage of patients seen within Australasian Triage Scale performance indicator thresholds increased from 75% to 81% in Category 2 patients (P = 0.12) and 56% to 78% in Category 3 patients (P < 0.0001). There was a reduction of 50% in the number of patients who left prior to being seen by a doctor (P = 0.024). Surveys showed high staff satisfaction with the process. CONCLUSIONS: We feel that multidisciplinary triage performs a useful function in our department enabling us to reduce waiting times. The process is widely accepted amongst the staff and it ensures a senior doctor assesses most patients. It reduces the number of patients leaving prior to being seen by a doctor and it provides one way of getting around access block and a physically small department.