Nurse-initiated oral opioid pain protocol improves the quality of musculoskeletal pain management in the emergency department

Severe pain management in the emergency department: patient pathway as a new factor associated with IV morphine prescription

Background

Across the world, 25-29% of the population suffer from pain. Pain is the most frequent reason for an emergency department (ED) visit. This symptom is involved in approximately 70% of all ED visits. The effective management of acute pain with adequate analgesia remains a challenge, especially for severe pain. Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols are currently indicated. These protocols are based on patient-reported scores, most often after an immediate evaluation of pain intensity at triage. However, they are not systematically prescribed. This aspect could be explained by the fact that physicians individualize opioid pain management for each patient and each care pathway to determine the best benefit-risk balance. Few data are available regarding bedside organizational factors involved in this phenomenon.

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the organizational factors associated with no IV morphine prescription in a standardized context of opioid management in a tertiary-care ED.

Methods

A 3-month prospective study with a case-control design was conducted in a French university hospital ED. This study focused on factors associated with protocol avoidance despite a visual analog scale (VAS) ≥60 or a numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥6 at triage. Pain components, physician characteristics, patient epidemiologic characteristics, and care pathways were considered. Qualitative variables (percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test or the chi-squared tests. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables. The results were expressed as means with their standard deviation (SD). Factors associated with morphine avoidance were identified by logistic regression.

Results

A total of 204 patients were included in this study. A total of 46 cases (IV morphine) and 158 controls (IV morphine avoidance) were compared (3:1 ratio). Pain patterns and patient's epidemiologic characteristics were not associated with an IV morphine prescription. Regarding NRS intervals, the results suggest a practice disconnected from the patient's initial self-report. IV morphine avoidance was significantly associated with care pathways. A significant difference between the IV morphine group and the IV morphine avoidance group was observed for "self-referral" [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.11, 95% CIs: 2.32-12.18, p < 0.0001] and patients' trajectories (Fisher's exact test; p < 0.0001), suggesting IV morphine avoidance in ambulatory pathways. In addition, "junior physician grade" was associated with IV morphine avoidance (aOR: 2.35, 95% CIs: 1.09-5.25, p = 0.03), but physician gender was not.

Conclusion

This bedside case-control study highlights that IV morphine avoidance in the ED could be associated with ambulatory pathways. It confirms the decreased choice of "NRS-only" IV morphine protocols for all patients, including non-trauma patterns. Modern pain education should propose new tools for pain evaluation that integrate the heterogeneity of ED pathways.

Pain Reduction Emergency Protocol: A Prospective Study Evaluating Impact of a Nurse-initiated Protocol on Pain Management and Parental Satisfaction

OBJECTIVES

Pain control remains suboptimal in pediatric emergency departments (EDs). Only 60% of pediatric patients requiring pain medications receive them in the ED, with an average time of administration being 90 minutes after arrival. Although pain protocols (PP) have been proposed and evaluated in children with long-bone fractures, data on PP utility for general pediatric patients with acute pain are limited. Our objective is to introduce a nursing-initiated PP with medication algorithms for use in triage, measure the improvement in management of severe pain on arrival to the ED and determine the effect on parental satisfaction.

METHODS

Prospective prestudy and poststudy conducted from June to October 2017. Patients aged 3 to 17 years presenting to a large tertiary pediatric ED with acute pain were eligible. Preprotocol demographics, clinical data, and pain interventions were obtained over a 6-week period. A convenience sample of parents completed a satisfaction survey rating their experience with ED pain management during this time. In the 4-week intervention phase, the PP was introduced to our ED nurses. Postintervention data were collected in the same fashion as the preintervention phase. Analysis was done using independent sample t test and χ2 models.

RESULTS

There were 1590 patients evaluated: preprotocol (n = 816), postprotocol (n = 774). Approximately 10% more patients with severe pain received pain medication in the post-PP sample compared with pre-PP (85.6% and 75.9% respectively). Parental satisfaction was higher in patients who received analgesic medications within 90 minutes of arrival to the ED (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a PP in the ED setting improved the treatment of pain. There was a significant increase in patients with severe pain receiving analgesic medications. Additionally, parents were more satisfied if their children received pain medication in a more timely fashion. Pediatric EDs should consider introducing PPs to improve appropriate and timely administration of pain medication in triage.

Bedside Evaluation of Early VAS/NRS Based Protocols for Intravenous Morphine in the Emergency Department: Reasons for Poor Follow-Up and Targeted Practices

Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols based on patient-reported scores, immediately at triage, are recommended for severe pain in Emergency Departments. However, a low follow-up is observed. Scarce data are available regarding bedside organization and pain etiologies to explain this phenomenon. The objective was the real-time observation of motivations and operational barriers leading to morphine avoidance. In a single French hospital, 164 adults with severe pain at triage were included in a cross-sectional study of the prevalence of IV morphine titration; caregivers were interviewed by real-time questionnaires on “real” reasons for protocol avoidance or failure. IV morphine prevalence was 6.1%, prescription avoidance was mainly linked to “Pain reassessment” (61.0%) and/or “alternative treatment prioritization” (49.3%). To further evaluate the organizational impact on prescription decisions, a parallel assessment of “simulated” prescription conditions was simultaneously performed for 98/164 patients; there were 18 titration decisions (18.3%). Treatment prioritization was a decision driver in the same proportion, while non-eligibility for morphine was more frequently cited (40.6% p = 0.001), with higher concerns about pain etiologies. Anticipation of organizational constraints cannot be excluded. In conclusion, IV morphine prescription is rarely based on first pain scores. Triage assessment is used for screening by bedside physicians, who prefer targeted practices to automatic protocols.