Is There Gender Discrimination in Acute Renal Colic Pain Management? A Retrospective Analysis in an Emergency Department Setting

Gender-based differences in assessment and management of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department: A retrospective audit

BACKGROUND

Previous research has identified gender-based differences in acute pain management in the emergency department [ED]. The aim of this study was to compare pharmacological management of acute abdominal pain in the ED by gender.

METHODS

A retrospective chart audit was conducted at one private metropolitan ED including adult patients (18-80 years) who presented with acute abdominal pain in 2019. Exclusion criteria included: pregnancy, repeat presentation within the study period, pain-free at initial medical review or documented refusal of analgesia, and oligo-analgesia. Comparisons by gender included: (1) analgesia type and (2) time to analgesia. Bivariate analysis was undertaken using SPSS.

RESULTS

There were 192 participants: 61 (31.6 %) men and 131 (67.9 %) women. Men were more likely to get combined opioid and non-opioid medication as first line analgesia (men: 26.2 % n = 16; women: 14.5 % n = 19, p = .049). Median time from ED presentation to analgesia was 80 min for men (IQR: 60) versus 94 min for women (IQR: 58), (p = .119). Women (25.2 % n = 33) were more likely to receive their first analgesic after 90 min from ED presentation compared to men versus men (11.5 %, n = 7 p = .029). In addition, women waited longer before receiving second analgesia (women: 94, men: 30 min, p = .032).

CONCLUSION

Findings confirm there are differences in pharmacological management of acute abdominal pain in the ED. Larger studies are required to further explore differences observed in this study.

"I Just Want to Feel Safe Going to a Doctor": Experiences of Female Patients with Chronic Conditions in Australia

Background

The androcentric history of medicine and medical research has led to an ongoing sex and gender gap in health research and education. Sex and gender gaps in research and education may translate into real-life health inequities for women. This study aimed to explore the experiences of female patients with chronic health conditions in the Australian health system, considering existing sex and gender gaps in medicine.

Methods

This qualitative study used semistructured in-depth interviews with a sample of adult women with chronic conditions in Australia. Thematic analysis was undertaken, guided by Braun and Clarke. Software NVivoX64 assisted in the management of the data. Coding was performed before grouping into subthemes and central themes. To allow for potential researcher biases, the principal researcher engaged in the practice of reflexivity, including the writing of detailed notes during analysis.

Results

Twenty adult Australian women with chronic conditions were interviewed. Diagnoses were varied and included Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, functional neurological disorder, and inflammatory bowel disease. Four central themes emerged: diagnostic difficulties; spectrum of health care experiences; understanding medical complexity; and coping with symptoms.

Conclusions

Women with chronic conditions in Australia report pain, fatigue, and suffering that significantly impacts upon their daily lives. There was a shared experience of feeling that the pain and suffering of women was dismissed or not taken seriously. Many women expressed trauma because of their experiences in health care and often this led to a fear of accessing health services. The participants highlighted a need for more knowledge, understanding, and empathy from health care practitioners.

Cognitive and implicit biases in nurses' judgment and decision-making: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Cognitive and implicit biases of healthcare providers can lead to adverse events in healthcare and have been identified as a patient safety concern. Most research on the impact of these systematic errors in judgment has been focused on diagnostic decision-making, primarily by physicians. As the largest component of the workforce, nurses make numerous decisions that affect patient outcomes; however, literature on nurses' clinical judgment often overlooks the potential impact of bias on these decisions. The aim of this study was to map the evidence and key concepts related to bias in nurses' judgment and decision-making, including interventions to correct or overcome these biases.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review using Joanna Briggs methodology. In November 2020 we searched CINAHL, PsychInfo, and PubMed databases to identify relevant literature. Inclusion criteria were primary research about nurses' bias; evidence of a nursing decision or action; and English language. No date or geographic limitations were set.

RESULTS

We found 77 items that met the inclusion criteria. Over half of these items were published in the last 12 years. Most research focused on implicit biases related to racial/ethnic identity, obesity, and gender; other articles examined confirmation, attribution, anchoring, and hindsight biases. Some articles examined heuristics and were included if they described the process of, and the problems with, nurse decision-making. Only 5 studies tested interventions to overcome or correct biases. 61 of the studies relied on vignettes, surveys, or recall methods, rather than examining real-world nursing practice. This could be a serious oversight because contextual factors such as cognitive load, which have a significant impact on judgment and decision-making, are not necessarily captured with vignette or survey studies. Furthermore, survey and vignette studies make it difficult to quantify the impact of these biases in the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the serious effects that bias has on nurses' clinical judgment, and thereby patient outcomes, a concerted, systematic effort to identify and test debiasing strategies in real-world nursing settings is needed.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Bias affects nurses' clinical judgment - we need to know how to fix it.

Sex Inequalities in Medical Research: A Systematic Scoping Review of the Literature

Background: Historically, medical studies have excluded female participants and research data have been collected from males and generalized to females. The gender gap in medical research, alongside overarching misogyny, results in real-life disadvantages for female patients. This systematic scoping review of the literature aims to determine the extent of research into the medical research sex and gender gap and to assess the extent of misogyny, if any, in modern medical research.

Methods: Initial literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Science Direct, PsychINFO and Google Scholar. Articles published between January 01, 2009, and December 31, 2019, were included. An article was deemed to display misogyny if it discussed the female aesthetic in terms of health, but did not measure health or could not be utilized to improve clinical practice.

Results: Of the 17 included articles, 12 examined the gender gap in medical research and 5 demonstrated misogyny, assessing female attractiveness for alleged medical reasons. Females remain broadly under-represented in the medical literature, sex and gender are poorly reported and inadequately analyzed in research, and misogynistic perceptions continue to permeate the narrative.

Conclusion: The gender gap and misogynistic studies remain present in the contemporary medical literature. Reasons and implications for practice are discussed.

Evaluation of sex disparities in opioid use among ED patients with sickle cell disease, 2006-2015

BACKGROUND

Acute pain from a vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) is a leading reason patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) visit the emergency department (ED). Prior studies suggest that women and men receive disparate ED treatment for acute pain in EDs. We aim to determine sex differences in analgesic use among patients with SCD presenting to the ED.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study uses data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), 2006-2015. We identified ED patients with a primary diagnosis of SCD. Among patients with SCD, we evaluated sex differences in the use of opioid analgesia using logistic regression (adjusting for patient and visit characteristics). Analyses accounted for survey design and weighting.

RESULTS

When evaluating the effect of sex on any opioid medication use in this population, though not significant, the odds that male patients were prescribed opioids was 1.5 (95% CI 0.8-2.8) times that of female patients after adjusting for age, the reason for visit, region, insurance status, and pain score. There was no significant difference in pain scores between male patients, 8.1 (95% CI 7.55-8.68) compared to female patients, 7.4 (95% CI 6.7-8.12).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative sample of ED visits among patients with SCD, there was no conclusive evidence of sex disparities in opioid prescribing. Though there is evidence of a trend signaling that male patients with SCD were more likely than female patients to be prescribed an opioid.

Feminism, gender medicine and beyond: a feminist analysis of "gender medicine"

The feminist women's health movement empowered women's knowledge regarding their health and battled against paternalistic and oppressive practices within healthcare systems. Gender Medicine (GM) is a new discipline that studies the effect of sex/gender on general health. The international society for gender medicine (IGM) was embraced by the FDA and granted funds by the European Union to formulate policies for medical practice and research.We conducted a review of IGM publications and policy statements in scientific journals and popular media. We found that while biological differences between men and women are emphasized, the impact of society on women is under- represented. The effect of gender-related violence, race, ethnic conflicts, poverty, immigration and discrimination on women's health is seldom recognized. Contrary to feminist practice, GM is practiced by physicians and scientists, neglecting voices of other disciplines and of women themselves.In this article we show that while GM may promote some aspects of women's health, at the same time it reaffirms conservative positions on sex and gender that can serve to justify discrimination and disregard the impact of society on women's lives and health. An alternative approach, that integrates feminist thinking and practices into medical science, practice and policies is likely to result in a deep and beneficiary change in women's health worldwide.

Sex-related differences in opioid administration in the emergency department: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Sex differences in pain experience and expression may influence ED pain management. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of sex on ED opioid administration.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre population-based observational cohort study using administrative data from Calgary's four EDs between 2017 and 2018. Eligible patients had a presenting complaint belonging to one of nine pain categories or an arrival pain score >3. We performed multivariable analyses to identify predictors of opioid administration and stratified analyses by age, pain severity and pain category.

RESULTS

We studied 119 510 patients (mean age 47.4 years; 55.4% female). Opioid administration rates were similar for men and women. After adjusting for age, hospital site, pain category, ED length of stay and pain severity, male sex was not a predictor of opioid treatment (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.93; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). However, men were more likely to receive opioids in the categories of trauma (aOR=1.58, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.78), flank pain (aOR=1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.38), headache (aOR=1.18, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.34) and abdominal pain (aOR=1.11, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.18). Pain category appears to be a strong determinant of opioid administration, especially back pain (aOR=6.56, 95% CI 5.99 to 7.19) and flank pain (aOR=6.04, 95% CI 5.48 to 6.65). There was significant variability in opioid provision by ED site (aOR 0.76 to 1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study demonstrated high variability in opioid use across different settings. Overall, men and women had similar likelihood of receiving opioids; however men with trauma, flank pain, headache and abdominal pain were much more likely to receive opioids. ED physicians should self-examine their analgesic practices with respect to possible sex biases, and departments should introduce evidence-based, indication-specific analgesic protocols to reduce practice variability and optimise opioid analgesia.

The analgesic effect of ketorolac addition for renal colic pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

The effect of ketorolac addition for the pain control of renal colic remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac addition for renal colic.

METHODS

We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through September 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac addition for renal colic. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Four RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. In patients with renal colic pain, ketorolac addition is associated with significantly lower pain scores at 10-20 min (SMD=-2.50; 95% CI=-4.31 to -0.68; P=0.007) and analgesic rescue (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.52 to 0.89; P=0.006), but reveals no notable effect on nausea (RR=0.36; 95% CI=0.12 to 1.12; P=0.08), vomiting (RR=0.50; 95% CI=0.13 to 1.95; P=0.31), or dizziness (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.05 to 0.60; P=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac addition may improve the analgesic efficacy for renal colic pain.