Compliance with a Morphine Protocol and Effect on Pain Relief in Out-of-Hospital Patients

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.

Pre-Hospital Administration of Opioids in Trauma Patients: Is Dose Associated With Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Opioids are commonly used as an analgesic agent in the prehospital setting. Current efforts to prevent and control prescription opioid overuse are focused on the in-hospital and post-discharge phases. The aim of our study was to assess the associations between pre-hospital opioids use and in-hospital outcomes among trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a 2 year (2016-2017) retrospective analysis of our Level-I trauma center database. We included all adult trauma patients (age > 18y) who received pre-hospital opioids (Fentanyl (F) or Morphine-Sulfate (MS)). Outcome measures were emergency-department (ED) hypotension (SPB < 90 mmHg), ED intubation, prescription opioid medication upon discharge, and mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 709 patients were included in the analysis. Cutoff values of 200 mcg F and 15 mg MS were significantly associated with adverse outcomes. Overall, the ED hypotension rate was 14.4%, ED intubation rate was 6%, and ED mortality rate was 3.1%. On regression analysis, higher dosages of both pre-hospital F and pre-hospital MS were independently associated with increased odds of ED hypotension, ED intubation, and discharge on opioid medications, but not with ED mortality.

CONCLUSION

Pre-hospital administration of high dose opioids is associated with increased odds of adverse outcomes. Collaborative efforts to standardize and control the overuse of opioids should target the pre-hospital setting to limit opioid associated adverse effects.

Prehospital intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel: a cluster-randomised comparison of two treatment protocols

Background

Prehospital acute pain is a frequent symptom that is often inadequately managed. The concerns of opioid induced side effects are well-founded. To ensure patient safety, ambulance personnel are therefore provided with treatment protocols with dosing restrictions, however, with the concomitant risk of insufficient pain treatment of the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a liberal intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol on efficacy and safety measures.

Methods

A two-armed, cluster-randomised trial was conducted in the Central Denmark Region over a 1-year period. Ambulance stations (stratified according to size) were randomised to follow either a liberal treatment protocol (3 μg/kg) or a standard treatment protocol (2 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with sufficient pan relief (numeric rating scale (NRS, 0–10) < 3) at hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included abnormal vital parameters as proxy measures of safety. A multi-level mixed effect logistic regression model was applied.

Results

In total, 5278 patients were included. Ambulance personnel following the liberal protocol administered higher doses of fentanyl [117.7 μg (95% CI 116.7–118.6)] than ambulance personnel following the standard protocol [111.5 μg (95% CI 110.7–112.4), P = 0.0001]. The number of patient with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival was higher in the liberal treatment group than the standard treatment group [44.0% (95% CI 41.8–46.1) vs. 37.4% (95% CI 35.2–39.6), adjusted odds ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.17–1.84)]. The relative decrease in NRS scores during transport was less evident [adjusted odds ratio 1.18 (95% CI 0.95–1.48)]. The occurrences of abnormal vital parameters were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

Liberalising an intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol applied by ambulance personnel slightly increased the number of patients with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival without compromising patient safety. Future efforts of training ambulance personnel are needed to further improve protocol adherence and quality of treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02914678). Date of registration: 26th September, 2016.

État des lieux de la prise en charge de la douleur

Le concept d’oligoanalgésie en structure d’urgences reste une réalité en France comme dans de nombreux pays qui publient sur le sujet. Les motifs de cette oligoanalgésie sont multiples, le plus souvent liés à des contraintes organisationnelles plus que médicales. Les solutions existent, et la douleur aiguë persistante ne doit plus être une fatalité en structure d’urgences. L’analyse des raisons de l’oligoanalgésie avec des audits ciblés et la mise en place de protocoles thérapeutiques locaux sont des prérequis à l’amélioration de la prise en charge. Les nouveaux enjeux de la médecine d’urgence, liés à l’augmentation constante de la sollicitation, mais également en lien avec l’évolution des techniques médicales et des compétences des équipes médicales et soignantes, donnent de nouvelles perspectives pour améliorer la qualité–sécurité de la prise en charge de la douleur en structure d’urgences.

Délégation de l’évaluation et du traitement de la douleur à l’infirmier de Service mobile d’urgence et de réanimation : étude avant–après monocentrique

Introduction : La prise en charge de la douleur en médecine d’urgence préhospitalière est encore insuffisante. Cette étude a pour objectif d’évaluer les effets d’une délégation de l’évaluation et du traitement de la douleur à l’infirmier diplômé d’État (IDE) en Service mobile d’urgence et de réanimation (Smur) sur le suivi des recommandations de la Société française de médecine d’urgence (SFMU).

Méthode : Étude rétrospective de type avant–après réalisée au Smur du centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) de Nîmes de janvier à mai 2017. Les IDE ont été formés, entre les deux phases, à un protocole de délégation de l’évaluation et du traitement de la douleur fondé sur les dernières recommandations.

Résultats : Cent quatre-vingt-un patients ont été inclus dans chaque groupe, 74 (40 %) femmes (âge moyen de 60 ± 18 ans). Les groupes étaient comparables à l’exception de la proportion d’interventions traumatologiques (11 % dans le groupe « avant » vs 20 % dans le groupe « après » ; p = 0,02). Les recommandations ont été respectées pour 12 (7 %) patients dans le groupe « avant », 21 (12 %) dans le groupe « après » (p = 0,10). Le seul facteur indépendant de respect des recommandations est le type d’intervention traumatologique (odds ratio = 9,7 ; intervalle de confiance à 95 % : [2,3–53,3] ; p < 0,01). Le nombre de patients ayant bénéficié d’une administration d’antalgique était respectivement de 55 (30 %) dans le groupe « avant » et de 73 (40 %) dans le groupe « après » (p = 0,05). La réévaluation de l’intensité douloureuse en fin de prise en charge a été consignée dans 11 (6 %) cas de la phase avant vs 38 (21 %) dans la phase après (p < 0,01). Dans le sous-groupe des patients n’ayant pas bénéficié de trinitrine, les recommandations ont été respectées respectivement pendant les phases « avant » et « après » chez 7 (6 %) patients vs 17 (14 % ; p = 0,03).

Conclusion : Malgré une augmentation du taux de prescription d’antalgiques et de réévaluation de la douleur, le protocole de délégation IDE n’a pas permis un meilleur respect des recommandations. L’établissement de protocoles spécifiques en fonction du type d’intervention, notamment traumatologique, pourrait être une piste de réflexion.

Modalités d’analgésie-sédation procédurale utilisées en traumatologie extrahospitalière par les médecins urgentistes de France métropolitaine

Introduction : L’analgésie-sédation procédurale (ASP) consiste à administrer des agents sédatifs permettant aux patients de tolérer des procédures désagréables. L’ASP a fait l’objet de recommandations formalisées d’experts de la Société française de médecine d’urgence (SFMU) depuis 2010. L’objectif était d’évaluer l’impact de ces recommandations sur les pratiques des smuristes en France concernant la réalisation d’une ASP.

Méthodes : Enquête téléphonique réalisée de janvier à juillet 2016. Nous avons joint un médecin de permanence le jour de l’appel dans chaque service mobile d’urgence et de réanimation (Smur) métropolitain. Il devait répondre à un questionnaire focalisé sur une situation clinique pour laquelle une ASP était indiquée : fracture fémorale déplacée.

Résultats : Chaque Smur métropolitain a été joint (n = 384), et 309 médecins ont répondu au questionnaire (80 %). Quarante-deux combinaisons thérapeutiques différentes ont été proposées, et 308 médecins (99 %) administraient soit un sédatif, soit un opioïde, soit les deux. La morphine était le principal antalgique utilisé (n = 232 ; 75 %), les posologies et les modalités correspondant aux dernières recommandations. La kétamine était le sédatif le plus utilisé (n = 163 ; 53 %), mais les posologies étaient inférieures à celles recommandées La douleur des patients communicants était évaluée avec une échelle adaptée. La douleur des patients non communicants, adultes ou enfants, n’était pas évaluée avec une échelle adaptée. Un tiers des Smur avait un protocole d’ASP, et 27 % des médecins disaient connaître les recommandations. Au total, il y avait une grande hétérogénéité des modalités de réalisation de l’ASP, avec notamment des difficultés de maniement des sédatifs, des recommandations peu connues et un faible taux de protocoles dans les Smur.

Clinically meaningful reduction in pain severity in children treated by paramedics: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric pain is a common presenting symptom in the prehospital setting; however, there is a lack of data identifying factors associated with effective pain management in this population. We sought to identify the factors associated with clinically meaningful pain reduction in children.

METHODS

An analysis of electronic patient care records of all patients younger than 15 years presenting with pain to the emergency medical service of Victoria, Australia, over a 4-year period (2008-2011). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate regression to assess predictors of clinically meaningful pain reduction. Clinically meaningful pain reduction was defined as a reduction of 2 or more points on an 11-point scale.

RESULTS

A total of 92378 children were transported, of whom 15016 (16.3%) met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 11 (interquartile range, 9-13) years, and 59.2% were male. Patients older than 9 years were less likely (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-0.6) and boys were more likely (adjusted odds ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3) to have a clinically meaningful reduction in pain. Patients with pain classified as musculoskeletal were more likely to achieve a reduction in pain score of 2 or more when compared with pain due to other medical causes (AOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-1.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors other than the type of analgesia are important determinants of prehospital pain relief and are likely to impact on clinical care and research. Clinical audit and research projects should stratify patients according to patient as well as management factors to maximize service improvement.

Use of morphine sulphate by South African paramedics for prehospital pain management

BACKGROUND

Evidence in the literature highlights the fact that acute pain in the prehospital setting remains poorly managed. Morphine remains the most commonly used analgesic agent in the South African prehospital emergency care setting. Although guidelines and protocols relating to the dosage and administration of morphine exist, little data are available describing its use by South African paramedics.

OBJECTIVES

To document and describe the way in which morphine is administered by a sample of South African paramedics for the management of acute pain in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

An Internet-based survey was conducted. Sixty South African paramedics responded by completing the online questionnaire documenting and describing their use of morphine for management of acute pain.

RESULTS

Results revealed that participants appeared to be overly cautious of potential adverse effects associated with administration of morphine. Although the majority of participants calculated the dose of morphine to be administered correctly according to the patient's weight, the majority do not appear to be administering this as a bolus; rather, they administer the calculated loading dose in a titrated manner over time. This method may result in a delay and or failure to adequately achieve therapeutic serum levels.

CONCLUSION

Failure to administer an appropriate bolus or 'loading dose' when administering morphine intravenously may result in ineffective and delayed pain management. The authors recommend more clearly defined protocols be developed to guide the use of morphine sulphate by paramedics in the local emergency medical services environment.

An Evidence-based Guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma

BACKGROUND

The management of acute traumatic pain is a crucial component of prehospital care and yet the assessment and administration of analgesia is highly variable, frequently suboptimal, and often determined by consensus-based regional protocols.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline (EBG) for the clinical management of acute traumatic pain in adults and children by advanced life support (ALS) providers in the prehospital setting. Methods. We recruited a multi-stakeholder panel with expertise in acute pain management, guideline development, health informatics, and emergency medical services (EMS) outcomes research. Representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (sponsoring agency) and a major children's research center (investigative team) also contributed to the process. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to guide the process of question formulation, evidence retrieval, appraisal/synthesis, and formulation of recommendations. The process also adhered to the National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline (EBG) model process approved by the Federal Interagency Council for EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council.

RESULTS

Four strong and three weak recommendations emerged from the process; two of the strong recommendations were linked to high- and moderate-quality evidence, respectively. The panel recommended that all patients be considered candidates for analgesia, regardless of transport interval, and that opioid medications should be considered for patients in moderate to severe pain. The panel also recommended that all patients should be reassessed at frequent intervals using a standardized pain scale and that patients should be re-dosed if pain persists. The panel suggested the use of specific age-appropriate pain scales.

CONCLUSION

GRADE methodology was used to develop an evidence-based guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma. The panel issued four strong recommendations regarding patient assessment and narcotic medication dosing. Future research should define optimal approaches for implementation of the guideline as well as the impact of the protocol on safety and effectiveness metrics.

The implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based statewide prehospital pain management protocol developed using the national prehospital evidence-based guideline model process for emergency medical services

BACKGROUND

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funded the development of a model process for the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) for emergency medical services (EMS). We report on the implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based prehospital pain management protocol developed using this model process.

METHODS

An evidence-based protocol for prehospital management of pain resulting from injuries and burns was reviewed by the Protocol Review Committee (PRC) of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems (MIEMSS). The PRC recommended revisions to the Maryland protocol that reflected recommendations in the EBG: weight-based dosing and repeat dosing of morphine. A training curriculum was developed and implemented using Maryland's online Learning Management System and successfully accessed by 3,941 paramedics and 15,969 BLS providers. Field providers submitted electronic patient care reports to the MIEMSS statewide prehospital database. Inclusion criteria were injured or burned patients transported by Maryland ambulances to Maryland hospitals whose electronic patient care records included data for level of EMS provider training during a 12-month preimplementation period and a 12-month postimplementation period from September 2010 through March 2012. We compared the percentage of patients receiving pain scale assessments and morphine, as well as the dose of morphine administered and the use of naloxone as a rescue medication for opiate use, before and after the protocol change.

RESULTS

No differences were seen in the percentage of patients who had a pain score documented or the percent of patients receiving morphine before and after the protocol change, but there was a significant increase in the total dose and dose in mg/kg administered per patient. During the postintervention phase, patients received an 18% higher total morphine dose and a 14.9% greater mg/kg dose.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the implementation of a revised statewide prehospital pain management protocol based on an EBG developed using the National Prehospital Evidence-based Guideline Model Process was associated with an increase in dosing of narcotic pain medication consistent with that recommended by the EBG. No differences were seen in the percentage of patients receiving opiate analgesia or in the documentation of pain scores.

Prehospital nausea and vomiting after trauma: Prevalence, risk factors, and development of a predictive scoring system

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common problems in trauma patients and potentially dangerous during trauma resuscitation. These symptoms are present in up to 10% of ambulance patients, but their prevalence in trauma patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of prehospital nausea and vomiting in trauma patients and evaluate antiemetic usage.

METHODS

Prospective, cohort study of trauma resuscitation patients transported by ambulance to a major trauma centre. Patients with hemodynamic instability (systolic blood pressure <90, heart rate >120) or Glasgow Coma Scale score <14 on arrival were excluded. Nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic use were recorded.

RESULTS

Convenience sample of 196 trauma resuscitation patients (68% men; age, 42 ± 18 years, mean Injury Severity Score 8 ± 7) were interviewed over the 5-month study period, of a total 369 admitted trauma patients (53%). Seventy-five (38%) patients reported some degree of nausea, 57 (29%) moderate or severe nausea, and 15 (8%) vomited. Older age and female gender were associated with vomiting (p < 0.01). Seventy-nine patients (40%) received a prophylactic antiemetic. Of these, four became nauseous (5%), compared with 71 of 117 (61%) for patients not given an antiemetic (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital nausea and vomiting are more common in our cohort of trauma patients than the reported rates in the literature for nontrauma patients transported to hospital by ambulance. Only 40% of patients receive prophylactic antiemetics, but those patients are less likely to develop symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V, epidemiological study.

[Out-of-hospital management of elderly patients for trauma injury]

Elderly patients should benefit from maximum care in cases of serious trauma, starting with pre-hospital care. A proper evaluation of the gravity of the trauma is an essential element in the management. The elderly are at risk of "under-triage", which can result in inappropriate hospital admission and delayed trauma care. Particular attention must be paid to "common" trauma, because such trauma is often associated with a potentially serious outcome in elderly patients. The Vittel criteria offer an important tool to estimate the level of gravity and to help in patient triage. The kinetic of the accident is important in identifying serious trauma. Emergency medical services with physicians on board must be the norm in cases of severe trauma, irrespective of the age of the patient. The literature clearly indicates the benefit of an aggressive strategy in elderly trauma patients, thus justifying direct admission in a trauma center in cases of real or potentially serious trauma. There is no difference in pre-hospital care management between elderly and younger trauma patients. Analgesia must be a priority. When a self-assessment of pain intensity is impossible, specific scales for pain can be used, such as Algoplus(®). Morphine titration is the recommended strategy for analgesia in the pre-hospital setting and the same protocol must be used for both the elderly and younger patients. Locoregional anaesthesia should be used when possible in this setting, in particular the ilio-facial block. Age is not a criterion for a non-resuscitation order in trauma patients. The decisions of limitation of therapeutic, if they were not anticipated, will be discussed after admission, according to the principles of the current legislation.

Prevalence and management of acute pain in prehospital emergency medicine

BACKGROUND

Less is known about the prevalence of pain in prehospital emergency medicine than about pain in the emergency department. Objectives. To estimate the prehospital prevalence of pain and to identify the factors associated with oligoanalgesia.

METHODS

The mobile intensive care units of the emergency services of a Paris suburb conducted this prospective study. All consecutive patients aged 16 years or older who were able to self-assess pain were included around the clock over a period of 11 months in 2007.

RESULTS

Among the 2,279 included patients, 947 had acute pain (42% [95% confidence interval (CI) 40-44]). Pain was intense to severe in 64% of patients. Factors associated with acute pain were trauma (odds ratio [OR] = 2.9 [1.9-4.3]) and age under 75 years (OR = 2.2 [1.7-2.8]). Intense pain was significantly associated with pain of cardiac or traumatic origin. Among the 1,364 patients transported by the mobile units, 48% experienced acute pain (71% had intense to severe pain). An analgesic agent was administered to 73%. According to multivariate analysis, only gynecologic/obstetric emergencies were associated with inadequate treatment (OR = 0.2 [95% CI 0.1-0.6]). Overall, 51% of patients [46-56] experienced pain relief. The rate of pain relief was lowest in patients suffering from trauma or a gynecologic/obstetric disorder.

CONCLUSION

In our studied population, pain in prehospital emergency medicine affects 42% of patients. However, the rate varies widely according to the origin of the pain. Pain management is inadequate, as only one in two patients experiences relief.