How Much Do Parents Know About Pain in Their Children?

OBJECTIVES: Adequate pain control is essential to the comprehensive management of pediatric patients within the emergency department.The aim of this study is to evaluate parents' knowledge about pain in the pediatric population patient and secondarily describe erroneous concepts that can affect a correct children's pain management. METHODS: A single-center descriptive study of cross-sectional surveys was performed between October and December 2018, with a previously validated ad hoc and anonymous questionnaire consisting of 9 items. All parents/guardians participating in the study had a child aged 0 to 18 years who had been admitted to the emergency department. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (n = 315) were women, 49.9% (n = 226) had university degrees and only 11% (n = 50) had professions related to the healthcare system. A linear association was observed between the number of correct answers and the level of education (ß = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.32; P < 0.001), as well as between parents with professions related to the healthcare system compared with other professions (61.4% vs 51.2% with P = 0.005). The responses of Spanish parents offered better results than answers obtained from parents from the American continent (56.4% vs 41.4% with P < 0.001). No differences were observed between parents of children with chronic diseases. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we observed that a considerable percentage of parents hold misconceptions about how children express pain, and therefore, it would be necessary to encourage formation programs for parents to help identify, evaluate, and correctly treat pain in their children.

Pain Prevalence Among Children Visiting Pediatric Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence, characteristics, and intensity of children's pain in emergency departments. The secondary purpose was to evaluate the interobserver agreement regarding the level of pain perceived by professionals, parents, and children. METHODS: This was a multicenter, survey-based research study on 0- to 18-year-old patients visiting 1 of the 15 hospitals that form part of the Working Group on Analgesia and Sedation of the Spanish Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine between October and December 2018. The surveys recorded pain presence, intensity, characteristics, and location. RESULTS: The study included 1216 surveys. At the time of the interview, 646 patients were experiencing pain, a prevalence of 53.1% (95% confidence interval, 50.3%-55.9%), with 25.38% reporting mild, 36.68% moderate, and 37.46% intense pain. Among the patients, 29.9% had abdominal pain and 14.1% pain in their legs.The pain lasted less than 24 hours in 48.2% of the patients, whereas only 3.0% experienced pain during more than 15 days. The parents of 50.7% of the children had provided an analgesic at home.Interrater agreement regarding pain levels was k = 0.35 between professionals and children, k = 0.38 between children and parents, and k = 0.17 between parents and professionals. For children unable to cooperate, the agreement between professional/child and the parents was k = 0.11. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is a common symptom among emergency department patients, and its evaluation should therefore be obligatory. We found low interrater agreement on pain levels between patients, professionals, and parents, which confirms how difficult it is to accurately evaluate pain intensity.

Analysis of the validity of the five-level TRIPED-GM paediatric triage system.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of the five-level TRIPED-GM pediatric triage system. METHODS: Unicentric, observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study of 485 patients aged 0-16 years in the pediatric emergency department of the HGU Gregorio Marañon. Two measures of validity were used: a direct measure calculated by the sensitivity and specificity obtained based on the number of infratriages and overtriages of the priorities given by classification nurses compared with a panel of experts and another indirect measure by the length of stay, the resources consumed and the percentage of income for each priority level. RESULTS: 10 patients were incorrectly classified, 4 (0.8%) were considered infratriages and 6 (1.2%) overtriages. The results showed a sensitivity of 99.45% (95% CI 96.5-99.97%) and a specificity of 99.01% (95% CI 96.9-99.7%) for high priorities (P2 and P3) and 98.99% (95% CI 96.8-99.6%) and 98.4% (95% CI 96.84-99.74%) respectively for low priorities (P4 and P5). The quadratic weighted Kappa index was 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.98; p = 0.0000). Resource consumption showed moderate Spearman correlation coefficients as the priority level increased. The percentage of admissions and the need for observation increased as the priority level p = 0,000 increased, not requiring observation or admitting any patients with priority 5. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIPED-GM pediatric triage system is valid for use in emergency departments with similar patients.

Eficacia, seguridad y satisfacción de los procedimientos de sedoanalgesia en las urgencias españolas / Efficacy, safety and satisfaction of sedation-analgesia in Spanish emergency departments

OBJETIVOS: La sedoanalgesia debe ser una prioridad de los servicios de urgencias pediátricas. Analizamos la eficacia y seguridad de los procedimientos de sedoanalgesia así como la satisfacción del personal, pacientes y padres. MÉTODOS: Estudio multicéntrico, prospectivo, observacional y analítico de los procedimientos de sedoanalgesia realizados a niños hasta los 18 años en 18 servicios de urgencias entre febrero de 2015 y enero de 2016. RESULTADOS: Se registraron 658 procedimientos (edad media: 6,8; DE: 4 años). La eficacia fue buena en 483 niños (76,1%; IC 95%: 72,7-79,4%), parcial en 138 (21,7%; IC 95%: 18,5-24,9%) y mala en 14 (2,2%; IC 95%: 1,1-3,4). Se asoció con eficacias mejores la realización por el pediatra de urgencias (OR: 3,14; IC 95%: 1,10-8,95) y un mayor nivel de sedación alcanzado (OR: 2,37; IC 95%: 1,68-3,35). Presentaron eventos adversos precoces 52 (8,4%) niños, siendo los más frecuentes: digestivos, neurológicos y respiratorios (el 89,9% remitieron en < 2 h). Un paciente requirió intubación. La mayor edad y la mayor profundidad de sedación fueron factores de riesgo independientes para presentar eventos adversos (OR: 1,18; IC 95%: 1,09-1,28 y OR: 1,86; IC 95%: 1,22-2,83, respectivamente). Trece niños (5%) presentaron eventos adversos tardíos, siendo el mareo y las náuseas/vómitos los más frecuentes; en todos ellos se usó la combinación midazolam/ketamina (RR: 24,46; IC95%: 11,78-50,76). Registramos la satisfacción percibida (puntuación de 0-10) de 604 profesionales (media: 8,54, DE: 1,95), de 526 padres (media: 8,86; DE: 1,49) y de 402 niños (media: 8,78; DE: 1,70). CONCLUSIONES: Los procedimientos de sedoanalgesia realizados por profesionales entrenados en los servicios de urgencias pediátricas españoles resultan útiles, eficaces y seguros, además de satisfactorios para todos los participantes

OBJECTIVES: To offer analgesia and sedation should be a priority in paediatric emergency departments. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of the sedation-analgesia procedure, as well as the satisfaction of the doctors, patients and parents. METHODS: A multicentre, observational, and prospective analytical study was conducted on the sedation-analgesia procedure performed on children younger than 18 years old in 18 paediatric emergency departments in Spain from February 2015 until January 2016. RESULTS: A total of 658 procedures were recorded. The effectiveness was good in 483 cases (76.1%; 95% CI: 72.7-79.4%), partial in 138 (21.7%; 95% CI: 18.5-24.9%), and poor in 14 (2.2%; 95%CI: 1.1-3.4). The effectiveness was better when the doctor in charge was an emergency paediatrician (OR: 3.14; 95%C I: 1.10-8.95), and when a deeper level of sedation was achieved (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.68-3.35). Fifty two children (8.4%) developed adverse drug reactions, more usually gastrointestinal, neurological or respiratory ones (89.9% were resolved in < 2 h). One patient was intubated. The older child and a deeper level of sedation were found to be independent risk factors for adverse reactions (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.09-1.28 and OR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.22-2.83, respectively). Thirteen children (5%) developed late adverse drug reactions, more commonly, dizziness and nauseas. A combination of midazolam/ketamine had been used in all the cases (RR: 24.46; 95% CI: 11.78-50.76). The perceived satisfaction level (0-10) was obtained from 604 doctors (mean: 8.54; SD: 1.95), 526 parents (mean: 8.86; SD: 1.49), and 402 children (mean: 8.78; SD: 1.70). CONCLUSIONS: The sedation-analgesia procedure performed in paediatric emergency departments by trained paediatricians seems to be useful, effective and safe, as well as satisfactory for all participants

[Efficacy, safety and satisfaction of sedation-analgesia in Spanish emergency departments]. / Eficacia, seguridad y satisfacción de los procedimientos de sedoanalgesia en las urgencias españolas.

OBJECTIVES: To offer analgesia and sedation should be a priority in paediatric emergency departments. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and safety of the sedation-analgesia procedure, as well as the satisfaction of the doctors, patients and parents. METHODS: A multicentre, observational, and prospective analytical study was conducted on the sedation-analgesia procedure performed on children younger than 18 years old in 18 paediatric emergency departments in Spain from February 2015 until January 2016. RESULTS: A total of 658 procedures were recorded. The effectiveness was good in 483 cases (76.1%; 95%CI: 72.7-79.4%), partial in 138 (21.7%; 95%CI: 18.5-24.9%), and poor in 14 (2.2%; 95%CI: 1.1-3.4). The effectiveness was better when the doctor in charge was an emergency paediatrician (OR: 3.14; 95%CI: 1.10-8.95), and when a deeper level of sedation was achieved (OR: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.68-3.35). Fifty two children (8.4%) developed adverse drug reactions, more usually gastrointestinal, neurological or respiratory ones (89.9% were resolved in <2h). One patient was intubated. The older child and a deeper level of sedation were found to be independent risk factors for adverse reactions (OR: 1.18; 95%CI: 1.09-1.28 and OR: 1.86; 95%CI: 1.22-2.83, respectively). Thirteen children (5%) developed late adverse drug reactions, more commonly, dizziness and nauseas. A combination of midazolam/ketamine had been used in all the cases (RR: 24.46; 95%CI: 11.78-50.76). The perceived satisfaction level (0-10) was obtained from 604 doctors (mean: 8.54; SD: 1.95), 526 parents (mean: 8.86; SD: 1.49), and 402 children (mean: 8.78; SD: 1.70). CONCLUSIONS: The sedation-analgesia procedure performed in paediatric emergency departments by trained paediatricians seems to be useful, effective and safe, as well as satisfactory for all participants.

Eficacia de una intervención educativa para mejorar el conocimiento de las/os enfermeras/os sobre el sondaje gástrico en pediatría / Effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve nurses' knowledge on pediatric nasogastric intubation

Objetivo. Eficacia de una intervención educativa para mejorar el conocimiento de las/os enfermeras/os sobre el sondaje gástrico en pediatría. Métodos. Estudio multicéntrico cuasi experimental pre- y postest mediante intervención educativa teórica basada en la evidencia bibliográfica y la evaluación de su eficacia a los 4 meses. Resultados. Cuestionarios entregados: 1019. Válidos: 557 (54,66 %) pretest, 246 (24,14 %) postest. Las respuestas pre- y postest fueron que el riesgo implícito que conllevaba siempre el procedimiento había sido percibido por el 53,2 % y aumentó al 70,7 % (p < 0,001). El 4,3 % elegía el tamaño de la sonda gástrica (SG) mediante tablas y se elevó al 24,6 % (p < 0,001). La longitud de la SG por introducir medida mediante el método nariz-oreja-distancia media xifoides-ombligo (nose-ear-mid-umbilicus; NEMU, por sus siglas en inglés) ascendió del 34,2 % al 81,3 % (p < 0,001). La comprobación de la ubicación de la SG previa a su uso pasó del 73,1 % al 86,5 % (p < 0,001). La comprobación de los cinco correctos (paciente, medicamento, dosis, vía y hora) previa a la utilización de la SG aumentó del 85,6 % al 91 %. Como métodos de comprobación, mejoró la percepción de inseguridad de la auscultación del 11,7 % al 31,1 % (p < 0,001), y disminuyó su uso del 95,1 % al 81,6 %. Creció la percepción de seguridad de la medición del pH gástrico del 71,3 % al 91,1 % (p < 0,001), y aumentó su uso del 7,6 % al 54,3 % (p < 0,001). Conclusiones. La intervención educativa resultó eficaz para incrementar el conocimiento de enfermería sobre el sondaje gástrico pediátrico.

Objective. To establish the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve nurses' knowledge on pediatric nasogastric intubation. Methods. Multicenter, quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study using a theoretical educational intervention based on bibliographic evidence and assessment of its effectiveness after 4 months. Results. Delivered questionnaires: 1019. Valid questionnaires: 557 (54.66 %) pre-test and 246 (24.14 %) post-test. Pre- and post-test answers indicated that the implied risk always entailed by the procedure had been perceived by 53.2 % and then increased to 70.7 % (p < 0.001). Nasogastric (NG) tube size was chosen using tables by 4.3 % of participants, and increased to 24.6 % (p < 0.001). The length of NG tube to be inserted as measured by the nose-ear-midumbilicus distance (NEMU) method increased from 34.2 % to 81.3 % (p < 0.001). Confirmation of NG tube placement prior to use increased from 73.1 % to 86.5 % (p < 0.001). Confirmation of the five rights (patient, drug, dosage, route, and timing) prior to NG tube use increased from 85.6 % to 91 %. In relation to confirmation methods, the perception that auscultation was unsafe improved from 11.7 % to 31.1 % (p < 0.001), and its use reduced from 95.1 % to 81.6 %. The perception that the measurement of gastric pH was safe increased from 71.3 % to 91.1 % (p < 0.001), and its use rose from 7.6 % to 54.3 % (p < 0.001). Conclusions. The educational intervention was effective to increase nurses' knowledge on pediatric nasogastric intubation.

Effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve nurses' knowledge on pediatric nasogastric intubation. / Eficacia de una intervención educativa para mejorar el conocimiento de las/os enfermeras/os sobre el sondaje gástrico en pediatría.

OBJETIVE: To establish the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve nurses' knowledge on pediatric nasogastric intubation. METHODS: Multicenter, quasi-experimental, pre- and post-test study using a theoretical educational intervention based on bibliographic evidence and assessment of its effectiveness after 4 months. RESULTS: Delivered questionnaires: 1019. Valid questionnaires: 557 (54.66 %) pre-test and 246 (24.14 %) post-test. Pre- and post-test answers indicated that the implied risk always entailed by the procedure had been perceived by 53.2 % and then increased to 70.7 % (p < 0.001). Nasogastric (NG) tube size was chosen using tables by 4.3 % of participants, and increased to 24.6 % (p < 0.001). The length of NG tube to be inserted as measured by the nose-ear-midumbilicus distance (NEMU) method increased from 34.2 % to 81.3 % (p < 0.001). Confirmation of NG tube placement prior to use increased from 73.1 % to 86.5 % (p < 0.001). Confirmation of the five rights (patient, drug, dosage, route, and timing) prior to NG tube use increased from 85.6 % to 91 %. In relation to confirmation methods, the perception that auscultation was unsafe improved from 11.7 % to 31.1 % (p < 0.001), and its use reduced from 95.1 % to 81.6 %. The perception that the measurement of gastric pH was safe increased from 71.3 % to 91.1 % (p < 0.001), and its use rose from 7.6 % to 54.3 % (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The educational intervention was effective to increase nurses' knowledge on pediatric nasogastric intubation.

Objetivo. Eficacia de una intervención educativa para mejorar el conocimiento de las/os enfermeras/os sobre el sondaje gástrico en pediatría. Métodos. Estudio multicéntrico cuasi experimental pre- y postest mediante intervención educativa teórica basada en la evidencia bibliográfica y la evaluación de su eficacia a los 4 meses. Resultados. Cuestionarios entregados: 1019. Válidos: 557 (54,66 %) pretest, 246 (24,14 %) postest. Las respuestas pre- y postest fueron que el riesgo implícito que conllevaba siempre el procedimiento había sido percibido por el 53,2 % y aumentó al 70,7 % (p < 0,001). El 4,3 % elegía el tamaño de la sonda gástrica (SG) mediante tablas y se elevó al 24,6 % (p < 0,001). La longitud de la SG por introducir medida mediante el método nariz-oreja-distancia media xifoides-ombligo (nose-ear-mid-umbilicus; NEMU, por sus siglas en inglés) ascendió del 34,2 % al 81,3 % (p < 0,001). La comprobación de la ubicación de la SG previa a su uso pasó del 73,1 % al 86,5 % (p < 0,001). La comprobación de los cinco correctos (paciente, medicamento, dosis, vía y hora) previa a la utilización de la SG aumentó del 85,6 % al 91 %. Como métodos de comprobación, mejoró la percepción de inseguridad de la auscultación del 11,7 % al 31,1 % (p < 0,001), y disminuyó su uso del 95,1 % al 81,6 %. Creció la percepción de seguridad de la medición del pH gástrico del 71,3 % al 91,1 % (p < 0,001), y aumentó su uso del 7,6 % al 54,3 % (p < 0,001). Conclusiones. La intervención educativa resultó eficaz para incrementar el conocimiento de enfermería sobre el sondaje gástrico pediátrico.

The Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward First Aid and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Among Parents.

PURPOSE: To determine the level of knowledge of first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among the parents of children who attended our Pediatric Emergency Department and to identify the factors that affect this knowledge. DESIGN AND METHODS: Descriptive, transversal study. A questionnaire was distributed anonymously among parents to collect data about their previous CPR training, knowledge and experience. RESULTS: A total 405 valid questionnaires were returned. The mean age of the sample was 38.08 (SD 7.1) years, and 66.9% of participants were female. The mean score of correctly answered questions was 6.76 out of 19 questions. Parents with a university education received a mean score of 7.16 versus 6.24 for those with a primary education (p = 0.022). Parents with previous training received a higher mean score (8.04 vs 6.17, respectively, p < 0.01). Parents with jobs related to healthcare or education received a higher mean score compared to those who did not (8.63, p < 0.01 and 7.16, p = 0.0013, respectively). No significant differences among parents with chronically ill children (p = 0.76) or related to the number of children (ρ = -0.101) were observed. Furthermore, 77.3% of parents expressed an interest in receiving further training. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of first aid among the general population is lacking. Parents with previous training in this field, those with a university-level education, and those who are healthcare providers and educational professionals received significantly higher scores. PRACTIC IMPLICATIONS: Studies based on surveys can be useful in estimating a population's knowledge base, allowing the development of community-based training activities.

Evaluación del manejo del dolor de la patología facial y oral en un Servicio de Urgencias Pediátrico y tras el alta domiciliaria / Assessment of orofacial pain management in a pediatric emergency department and at home after discharge

Introducción. El manejo inadecuado del dolor es frecuente en Urgencias. El objetivo fue analizar el manejo del dolor de niños con patología infecciosa o traumática del área facial/oral en Urgencias y evaluar el cumplimiento y satisfacción sobre la analgesia prescrita al momento del alta. Población y métodos. Estudio transversal, observacional y analítico en niños que acudieron a Urgencias con patología infecciosa/traumática de la región facial/oral durante 2 meses. Se recogieron el manejo del dolor en Urgencias, la analgesia prescrita para el domicilio y, tras el contacto telefónico con los padres, el tratamiento realizado y su adecuación al dolor del niño. Resultados. Fueron incluidos 252 pacientes (edad media de 4,5 años, desvío estándar 3,89). En 8,7%, figuraba la evaluación del dolor en triaje y, en 3,6%, en el informe médico. Se administró analgesia en Urgencias al 41,3%. Al momento del alta, en un 13,9%, no se prescribió analgesia; en 25,4%, se prescribió pautada y, en 60,3%, a demanda. Los pediatras usaron más analgesia pautada que los cirujanos (34,4% vs. 16,5%, p < 0,01). En el domicilio, no administraron analgesia en el 39,3%; en un 36,1%, pautada y, en un 23%, a demanda. Existió escasa correlación entre la pauta al momento del alta y la administrada en el domicilio (kappa: 0,178). Se consideró la analgesia adecuada en el 84%, con más frecuencia en patología traumática que infecciosa (85,7% vs. 14,3%, p < 0,01). Conclusiones. Se observó escasa evaluación y tratamiento del dolor en Urgencias. La prescripción más usada fue a demanda en vez de pautada, al contrario de lo recomendado en las guías. El control analgésico fue mejor en patología traumática que infecciosa.

Introduction. An inadequate pain management is common in the emergency department. Our objective was to analyze pain management among children with an orofacial infection or trauma in the emergency department and to assess compliance and satisfaction with analgesia prescribed at discharge. Population and methods. Cross-sectional, observational and analytical study in children attending the emergency department for an orofacial infection or trauma over 2 months. Pain management in the emergency department, analgesia prescribed at home and, following a call to parents, treatment provided and its adequacy to control pain were registered. Results. In total, 252patients (mean age: 4.5 years, SD: 3.89) were included. Pain assessment was recorded at the triage for 8.7%, and in the medical report, for 3.6%. Analgesia was administered to 41.3% in the emergency room. At discharge, no analgesia was prescribed to 13.9%; scheduled analgesia, to 25.4%; and as needed, to 60.3%. Pediatricians prescribed scheduled analgesia more frequently than surgeons (34.4% versus 16.5%, p < 0.01). At home, no analgesia was administered to 39.3%; scheduled analgesia, to 36.1%; and as needed, to 23%. There is little correlation between prescription at discharge and at home (Kappa: 0.178). Analgesia was considered adequate in 84% of cases, and was more frequent in trauma injuries than in infections (85.7% versus 14.3%, p < 0.01). Conclusions. Pain assessment and management was scarce in the emergency department. The most common prescription was as needed, contrary to what is recommended in the guidelines. Analgesic control worked better for trauma injuries than for infections.

Assessment of orofacial pain management in a pediatric emergency department and at home after discharge. / Evaluación del manejo del dolor de la patología facial y oral en un Servicio de Urgencias Pediátrico y tras el alta domiciliaria.

INTRODUCTION: An inadequate pain management is common in the emergency department. Our objective was to analyze pain management among children with an orofacial infection or trauma in the emergency department and to assess compliance and satisfaction with analgesia prescribed at discharge. POPULATION AND METHODS: Cross-sectional, observational and analytical study in children attending the emergency department for an orofacial infection or trauma over 2 months. Pain management in the emergency department, analgesia prescribed at home and, following a call to parents, treatment provided and its adequacy to control pain were registered. RESULTS: In total, 252patients (mean age: 4.5 years, SD: 3.89) were included. Pain assessment was recorded at the triage for 8.7%, and in the medical report, for 3.6%. Analgesia was administered to 41.3% in the emergency room. At discharge, no analgesia was prescribed to 13.9%; scheduled analgesia, to 25.4%; and as needed, to 60.3%. Pediatricians prescribed scheduled analgesia more frequently than surgeons (34.4% versus 16.5%, p < 0.01). At home, no analgesia was administered to 39.3%; scheduled analgesia, to 36.1%; and as needed, to 23%. There is little correlation between prescription at discharge and at home (Kappa: 0.178). Analgesia was considered adequate in 84% of cases, and was more frequent in trauma injuries than in infections (85.7% versus 14.3%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pain assessment and management was scarce in the emergency department. The most common prescription was as needed, contrary to what is recommended in the guidelines. Analgesic control worked better for trauma injuries than for infections.

INTRODUCCIÓN: El manejo inadecuado del dolor es frecuente en Urgencias. El objetivo fue analizar el manejo del dolor de niños con patología infecciosa o traumática del área facial/oral en Urgencias y evaluar el cumplimiento y satisfacción sobre la analgesia prescrita al momento del alta. POBLACIÓN Y MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal, observacional y analítico en niños que acudieron a Urgencias con patología infecciosa/traumática de la región facial/oral durante 2 meses. Se recogieron el manejo del dolor en Urgencias, la analgesia prescrita para el domicilio y, tras el contacto telefónico con los padres, el tratamiento realizado y su adecuación al dolor del niño. RESULTADOS: Fueron incluidos 252 pacientes (edad media de 4,5 años, desvío estándar 3,89). En 8,7%, figuraba la evaluación del dolor en triaje y, en 3,6%, en el informe médico. Se administró analgesia en Urgencias al 41,3%. Al momento del alta, en un 13,9%, no se prescribió analgesia; en 25,4%, se prescribió pautada y, en 60,3%, a demanda. Los pediatras usaron más analgesia pautada que los cirujanos (34,4% vs. 16,5%, p < 0,01). En el domicilio, no administraron analgesia en el 39,3%; en un 36,1%, pautada y, en un 23%, a demanda. Existió escasa correlación entre la pauta al momento del alta y la administrada en el domicilio (kappa: 0,178). Se consideró la analgesia adecuada en el 84%, con más frecuencia en patología traumática que infecciosa (85,7% vs. 14,3%, p < 0,01). CONCLUSIONES: Se observó escasa evaluación y tratamiento del dolor en Urgencias. La prescripción más usada fue a demanda en vez de pautada, al contrario de lo recomendado en las guías. El control analgésico fue mejor en patología traumática que infecciosa.

Conocimiento de las enfermeras de las dosis de medicamentos en urgencias de pediatría / Knowledge of nurses about medication doses at pediatric urgency departament

Los fallos relacionados con la medicación son la segunda causa de errores en pacientes hospitalizados. Los niños son un grupo de riesgo, siendo la presión asistencial del servicio de urgencias determinante en la incidencia de errores. OBJETIVO: Determinar los conocimientos de las enfermeras sobre las dosis de los medicamentos más utilizados en urgencias pediátricas. Material y MÉTODO: Estudio descriptivo transversal realizado a enfermeras de urgencias pediátricas en 14 hospitales de Madrid. Mediante un cuestionario autoadministrado se recogieron datos durante 5 días en enero de 2014: demográficos; del conocimiento en la responsabilidad del personal de enfermería en la administración y en la dosificación de estos medicamentos. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo global y estratificado por tipo de hospital y experiencia laboral. RESULTADOS: La tasa de respuesta fue de 114 (34,9%). Del personal, 80 (70,8%) comprueban las dosis antes de administrarlas; 20 (18,6%) no creen que sea responsabilidad suya administrar una dosis mal prescrita. Hay mayor conocimiento entre el grupo con experiencia mayor a 5 años, excepto en sedoanalgesia (p < 0,05). La media de puntuación obtenida fue de 3,8 sobre 10 (1,99). CONCLUSIONES: El conocimiento de dosis de medicamentos de las enfermeras es deficiente

Errors in drug administration are the second cause of errors in hospitalized PATIENTS: Children are a high risk group. Besides, pressure in care interventions at emergency department leads to increase incidence errors. AIM: Determining nurses' knowledge about the most common drug doses at pediatric urgency department. METHODS: Descriptive transversal study. We collected data from nurses of 14 pediatric emergency departments of Madrid. With an 'ad hoc' questionnaire we collected the following data during five days in January of 2014: demographic, knowledge of responsibility in administration and doses of drugs. Global descriptive analysis was made and it was stratified by hospital and work experience. RESULTS: The answer rate was 114 (34.9%). Only 80 (70.8%) of nurses confirm doses before their administration; 20 (18.6%) think that a wrong prescription that they administer is not their responsibility. There is a high knowledge in the group with more than five years of work experience, except for sedative-analgesic drugs (p < 0.05). The average score obtained was 3.8 of 10 (1.99). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' knowledge about drug doses is low

[Knowledge of nurses about medication doses at pediatric urgency departament]. / Conocimiento de las enfermeras de las dosis de medicamentos en urgencias de pediatría.

UNLABELLED: Errors in drug administration are the second cause of errors in hospitalized patients. Children are a high risk group. Besides, pressure in care interventions at emergency department leads to increase incidence errors. AIM: Determining nurses' knowledge about the most common drug doses at pediatric urgency department. METHODS: Descriptive transversal study. We collected data from nurses of 14 pediatric emergency departments of Madrid. With an "ad hoc" questionnaire we collected the following data during five days in January of 2014: demographic, knowledge of responsibility in administration and doses of drugs. Global descriptive analysis was made and it was stratified by hospital and work experience. RESULTS: The answer rate was 114 (34.9%). Only 80 (70.8%) of nurses confirm doses before their administration; 20 (18.6%) think that a wrong prescription that they administer is not their responsibility. There is a high knowledge in the group with more than five years of work experience, except for sedative-analgesic drugs (p<0.05). The average score obtained was 3.8 of 10 (1.99). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' knowledge about drug doses is low.

Acerca de los estudios con múltiples comparaciones estadísticas / On studies with multiple statistical comparisons

No disponible

Sondaje naso/orogástrico en el paciente pediátrico. Revisión de métodos de comprobación de la ubicación / Naso-orogastric tube in paediatric patients. Review of methods of confirmation of placement

La colocación de la sonda gástrica (SG) es un procedimiento no infrecuente en la población pediátrica. Las SG se utilizan con asiduidad en los servicios de Hospitalización, de Urgencias Pediátricas y en los de Cuidados Críticos. Sus objetivos son diagnósticos, terapéuticos y la descompresión y evacuación del contenido aspirado. La colocación a ciegas de la SG conlleva tasas de colocación incorrecta de entre un 4.7 % y un 69 % de los casos. Se necesita por lo tanto la utilización de un método fiable de determinación de la colocación de la misma. La radiografía (Rx) de tórax es el único método fiable al cien por cien (gold standard), pero solo confirma la colocación en el momento exacto de realización de la Rx. Los métodos no radiológicos son una alternativa fiable que contribuyen a reducir la exposición a radiaciones en los pacientes pediátricos. Hay diversos métodos alternativos a la Rx para verificar la colocación apropiada de la SG y que están respaldados por distintos grados de evidencia científica. Algunos son: medida de la sonda desde el punto de entrada; auscultación, aspiración del contenido estomacal o intestinal para inspeccionarlo visualmente; medición del pH; capnografía, o la combinación de varios de estos métodos. En este artículo se revisa a fondo la validez y la seguridad de algunos de estos métodos no radiológicos como métodos de comprobación de la ubicación de la SG (AU)

Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is a frequent procedure in the paediatric population. Nasogastric and orogastric tubes are commonly used in hospitalized children, in the paediatric emergency departments and in critical care departments. They have diagnostic, therapeutic, descompression or evacuation of gastric aspirates objectives. Making a blind placement of nasogastric tubes, involve that nasogastric tube could be misplaced in 4.7 % to 69 % of cases. An accurate method for confirmation of nasogastric tube positioning is therefore needed. Chest X-ray remains the only hundred per cent reliable method (gold standard), but it only confirms tube positioning at the exact time of the X-ray. Non-radiologic verification methods provide an accurate alternative and contribute to decrease radiation exposure for pediatric patients. Non-radiologic methods to verify appropiate placement of tubes are many and are supported by different degrees of evidence in the literature: measurement of tube length from point of entry; auscultation; placing the tube in water to assess bubbling; aspiration of stomach or intestinal contents for visual inspection; pH testing; use of CO2 monitoring devices, or combinations of these methods. In this article we thoroughly review the reliability and safety of these non radiologic methods for the verification of nasogastric tube placement (AU)

[NASO-OROGASTRIC TUBE IN PAEDIATRIC PATIENTS. REVIEW OF METHODS OF CONFIRMATION OF PLACEMENT]. / Sondaje naso/orogástrico en el paciente pediátrico.

Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is a frequent procedure in the paediatric population. Nasogastric and orogastric tubes are commonly used in hospitalized children, in the paediatric emergency departments and in critical care departments. They have diagnostic, therapeutic, descompression or evacuation of gastric aspirates objectives. Making a blind placement of nasogastric tubes, involve that nasogastric tube could be misplaced in 4.7 % to 69 % of cases. An accurate method for confirmation of nasogastric tube positioning is therefore needed. Chest X-ray remains the only hundred per cent reliable method (gold standard), but it only confirms tube positioning at the exact time of the X-ray. Non-radiologic verification methods provide an accurate alternative and contribute to decrease radiation exposure for pediatric patients. Non-radiologic methods to verify appropiate placement of tubes are many and are supported by different degrees of evidence in the literature: measurement of tube length from point of entry; auscultation; placing the tube in water to assess bubbling; aspiration of stomach or intestinal contents for visual inspection; pH testing; use of CO2 monitoring devices, or combinations of these methods. In this article we thoroughly review the reliability and safety of these non radiologic methods for the verification of nasogastric tube placement.