Applying the Ottawa subarachnoid haemorrhage rule on a cohort of emergency department patients with headache.

OBJECTIVE: The Ottawa subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) rule suggests that alert patients older than 15 years with a severe nontraumatic headache reaching maximum intensity within 1 h and absence of high-risk variables effectively have a SAH ruled out. We aimed to determine the proportion of emergency department (ED) patients with any headache fulfilling the entry criteria for the Ottawa SAH rule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Ottawa SAH rule was applied retrospectively in a substudy of a prospective snapshot of 34 EDs in Queensland, Australia, carried out over 4 weeks in September 2014. Patient aged 18 years and older with a nontraumatic headache of any potential cause were included. Clinical data and results of investigations were collected. RESULTS: Data were available for 644 (76%) patients. A total of 149 (23.1%, 95% confidence interval: 20.0-26.5%) fulfilled and 495 (76.9%, 95% confidence interval: 73.5-80.0%) did not fulfil the entry criteria. In patients who fulfilled the entry criteria, 30 (<5% overall) did not have any high-risk variables for SAH. In patients who fulfilled the entry criteria and had at least 1 high-risk feature, almost half (46%) received a computed tomographic brain. No SAH were missed. CONCLUSION: In this descriptive observational study, the majority of ED patients presenting with a headache did not fulfil the entry criteria for the Ottawa SAH rule. Less than 5% of the patients in this cohort could have SAH excluded on the basis of the rule. More definitive studies are needed to determine an accepted benchmark for the proportion of patients receiving further work-up (computed tomographic brain) after fulfilling the entry criteria for the Ottawa SAH rule.

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.