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.

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.

Factors associated with high levels of patient satisfaction with pain management.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine, among emergency department (ED) patients, the factors associated with a high level of satisfaction with pain management. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in a single ED. Consecutive adult patients, with triage pain scores of ≥4 (numerical rating scale=0 to 10), were enrolled. Variables examined included demographics, presenting complaint, pain scores, nurse-initiated analgesia, analgesia administered, time to first analgesia, specific pain communication, and whether "adequate analgesia" was provided (defined as a decrease in pain score to <4 and a decrease from the triage pain score of ≥2). The level of patient satisfaction with their pain management (six-point scale: very unsatisfied to very satisfied) was determined by a blinded investigator 48 hours post discharge. Logistic regression analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Data were complete for 476 patients: mean (±standard deviation [SD]) age was 43.6 (±17.2) years, and 237 were males (49.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=45.2% to 54.4%). A total of 190 (39.9%, 95% CI=35.5% to 44.5%) patients were "very satisfied" with their pain management, and 207 (43.5%, 95% CI=39.0% to 48.1%) patients received adequate analgesia. Three variables were associated with the patient being very satisfied: the provision of adequate analgesia (odds ratio [OR]=7.8, 95% CI=4.9 to 12.4), specific pain communication (OR=2.3, 95% CI=1.3 to 4.1), and oral opioid administration (OR=2.0, 95% CI=1.1 to 3.4). Notably, the provision of nurse-initiated analgesia to 211 patients (44.3%, 95% CI=39.8% to 48.9%) and the short time to analgesia (median=11.5 minutes; interquartile range [IQR]=2.0 to 85.8 minutes) were not associated with being very satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of adequate analgesia (as defined) is highly associated with patient satisfaction. This variable may serve as a clinically relevant and achievable target in the pursuit of best-practice pain management.

A new perspective on VBAC: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies assessing the safety of vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) have compared VBAC to elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS), despite the fact that the risks posed by each are considerably different. Explaining the complications of VBAC in a way that is meaningful to women can be challenging, and thus a comparison to a similar group of women who have also not undergone previous vaginal delivery may be a more relevant comparison. RESEARCH QUESTION: When counselling women undergoing planned VBAC, should a comparison of outcomes be made to women undergoing ERCS, or is a comparison to other nulliparous women undergoing vaginal birth a more valid comparison in terms of risk outcomes? PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken comprising a consecutive cohort of 21,389 women who delivered, stratified by Robson's criteria into Robson groups 1-5. Those in Robson groups 6-10 were not included. Demographic data and maternal/neonatal outcomes were reviewed, with main outcome measures comprising uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrhage (PPH), 3rd/4th degree tears and neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: There was no increase in PPH, vaginal tears or neonatal complications in the VBAC group when compared to Robson groups 1 and 2 (nulliparous women in spontaneous or induced labour, respectively). Uterine rupture rates were low in all groups, with no correlation identified. DISCUSSION: The maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with VBAC is comparable to primiparous women undergoing a vaginal birth. CONCLUSION: In demonstrating the low relative morbidity in this comparison, these outcomes may aid in counselling women faced with the choice of VBAC versus ERCS.

Intraperitoneal ropivacaine and a gas drain: effects on postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits of the combination of a gas drain and the instillation of local anesthetic on the incidence of pain after operative gynecologic laparoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized control trial (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients undergoing operative gynecologic laparoscopy procedures lasting less than 105 minutes. INTERVENTIONS: Postoperatively, one group received a blocked drain and saline placed intraperitoneally; a second group was given a blocked drain and ropivacaine; a third group received a patent drain and saline; and a fourth was given a patent drain and ropivacaine. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Visual analogue pain scores (VAS) were measured at 1, 2, 4, and 12 hours and day 1 to day 7. Also measured was opioid consumption at 4 hours, nausea, and activity scores. We found a statistically significant improvement in pain scores at 2 and 4 hours in the group allocated to receive a patent drain and ropivacaine. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of a gas drain and ropivacaine to reduce postoperative pain.