Acute musculoskeletal pain in the emergency department: a review of the literature and implications for the advanced practice nurse

An Adaptive Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Emergency Department Acupuncture for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain Management

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Acute musculoskeletal pain in emergency department (ED) patients is frequently severe and challenging to treat with medications alone. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of adding ED acupuncture to treat acute episodes of musculoskeletal pain in the neck, back, and extremities.

METHODS

In this pragmatic 2-stage adaptive open-label randomized clinical trial, Stage 1 identified whether auricular acupuncture (AA; based on the battlefield acupuncture protocol) or peripheral acupuncture (PA; needles in head, neck, and extremities only), when added to usual care was more feasible, acceptable, and efficacious in the ED. Stage 2 assessed effectiveness of the selected acupuncture intervention(s) on pain reduction compared to usual care only (UC). Licensed acupuncturists delivered AA and PA. They saw and evaluated but did not deliver acupuncture to the UC group as an attention control. All participants received UC from blinded ED providers. Primary outcome was 1-hour change in 11-point pain numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

Stage 1 interim analysis found both acupuncture styles similar, so Stage 2 continued all 3 treatment arms. Among 236 participants randomized, demographics and baseline pain were comparable across groups. When compared to UC alone, reduction in pain was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7 to 2.6) points greater for AA+UC and 1.2 (95% CI: 0.3 to 2.1) points greater for PA+UC patients. Participants in both treatment arms reported high satisfaction with acupuncture.

CONCLUSION

ED acupuncture is feasible and acceptable and can reduce acute musculoskeletal pain better than UC alone.

Oligoanalgesia in the emergency setting - An Indian review

Pain is a result of nociceptive tissue injury and results in acute and chronic impact to patients. Acute pain management is the need of the hour as untreated or under-treated pain may progress to chronic pain. Pain irrespective of its temporality causes a negative impact on the quality of life of the patients. Many Indian emergency settings are not adequately equipped to handle pain due to the heavy load of patients and the lack of awareness about the pain management guidelines. This leads to undertreatment of pain or 'oligoanalgesia'. A pain management protocol can help prevent oligoanalgesia in an emergency setting. Proper utilization of triage systems that incorporate pain as one of the vital signs is necessary. The categorization of pain with the help of a pain scale helps determine the severity of pain and its appropriate management. Pain management is an ongoing process that does not end with the discharge of the patient. Post discharge management of pain is also an important factor to prevent chronic pain. This may involve various modalities for pain management under the preview of multimodal management of pain.

Normal Saline Trigger Point Injections vs Conventional Active Drug Mix for Myofascial Pain Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) originates in the muscle and fascia. MPS presents with referred pain specific for each muscle and a trigger point that reproduces the symptoms. Trigger-point-injection (TPI) is an effective approach to treating MPS. Some TPI agents, however, are associated with systemic and local side effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of TPI with a conventional active drug mixture (CADM) vs. that with normal saline solution (NS) alone in patients with MPS presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Adults with MPS diagnosed in the ED, participants were randomly assigned to receive TPI with NS or with CADM. Pain intensity was scored using a 0-10 numeric rating scale prior to and after TPI, before discharge and 2 weeks after TPI.

RESULTS

Among 48 patients analyzed, 23 received TPI with NS. The mean pain scores were as follows: immediately before TPI, 7.59 (NS) and 7.44 (CADM); immediately after TPI, 2.22 (NS) and 1.76 (CADM); prior to discharge, 1.52 (NS) and 1.76 (CADM). At 2-week follow up, the mean pain scores were 4.29 (NS) and 4.14 (CADM). Pain was significantly reduced after TPI in both groups. At 2 weeks, the mean pain scores were similar between the groups. No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

In cases of MPS in the ED, pain can be controlled with TPI independent of the injectate. TPI with NS may be preferred over CADM because of its lower cost and more favorable side effect profile.

Painful Discrimination in the Emergency Department: Risk Factors for Underassessment of Patients' Pain by Nurses

INTRODUCTION

Unrelieved acute musculoskeletal pain continues to be a reality of major clinical importance, despite advancements in pain management. Accurate pain assessment by nurses is crucial for effective pain management. Yet inaccurate pain assessment is a consistent finding worldwide in various clinical settings, including the emergency department. In this study, pain assessments between nurses and patients with acute musculoskeletal pain after extremity injury will be compared to assess discrepancies. A second aim is to identify patients at high risk for underassessment by emergency nurses.

METHODS

The prospective PROTACT study included 539 adult patients who were admitted to the emergency department with musculoskeletal pain. Data on pain assessment and characteristics of patients including demographics, pain, and injury, psychosocial, and clinical factors were collected using questionnaires and hospital registry.

RESULTS

Nurses significantly underestimated patients' pain with a mean difference of 2.4 and a 95% confidence interval of 2.2-2.6 on an 11-points numerical rating scale. Agreement between nurses' documented and patients' self-reported pain was only 27%, and 63% of the pain was underassessed. Pain was particularly underassessed in women, in persons with a lower educational level, in patients who used prehospital analgesics, in smokers, in patients with injury to the lower extremities, in anxious patients, and in patients with a lower urgency level.

DISCUSSION

Underassessment of pain by emergency nurses is still a major problem and might result in undertreatment of pain if the emergency nurses rely on their assessment to provide further pain treatment. Strategies that focus on awareness among nurses of which patients are at high risk of underassessment of pain are needed.

Building a Biopsychosocial Conceptual Framework to Explore Pressure Ulcer Pain for Hospitalized Patients

Although pressure ulcers are a prevalent condition, pain associated with pressure ulcers is not fully understood. Indeed, previous studies do not shed light on the association between pressure ulcer stages and the experience of pain. Especially, pain characteristics of suspected deep tissue injury, which is a new category that was recently added by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, are yet unknown. This is concerning because the incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients has increased exponentially over the last two decades, and health care providers are struggling to ensure providing adequate care. Thus, in order to facilitate the development of effective interventions, this paper presents a conceptual framework to explore pressure ulcer pain in hospitalized patients. The concepts were derived from a biopsychosocial model of pain, and the relationships among each concept were identified through a literature review. Major propositions are presented based on the proposed conceptual framework, which integrates previous research on pressure ulcer pain, to ultimately improve understanding of pain in hospitalized patients with pressure ulcers.

Myofascial Pain Syndromes in the Emergency Department: What Are We Missing?

BACKGROUND

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS), pain originating in the myofascial tissue, is a widely recognized pathology characterized by the presence of referred pain (often distant from its origin and specific to each muscle) that can resemble other pathologies and by the presence of a trigger point, a localized hyperirritable band able to reproduce the pain and its associated symptoms. Patients with acute or chronic MPS are commonly seen in the emergency department (ED), usually complaining of pain of undetermined origin. Traditionally, the emergency physician (EP) is not trained to diagnose and treat MPS, and many patients with MPS have received less than optimal management of this condition in the ED. Many types of treatments are known to be effective against MPS. Among these, trigger point injection (TPI) is considered a practical and rapid approach that can be carried out in the ED by EPs.

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the current diagnostic methods, treatment options, and procedures for MPS patients seen in the ED to enable EPs to diagnose and successfully treat this condition.

DISCUSSION

This article discusses the clinical characteristics, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of MPS in the ED, including a description of performing TPI.

CONCLUSIONS

MPS can mimic other clinical conditions commonly seen in the ED. MPS can be diagnosed on the basis of clinical findings; in many cases, no imaging or laboratory testing is needed. Therefore, MPS diagnosis and treatment can be successfully accomplished in the ED by EPs.

Pain management in the emergency chain: the use and effectiveness of pain management in patients with acute musculoskeletal pain

OBJECTIVE

While acute musculoskeletal pain is a frequent complaint in emergency care, its management is often neglected, placing patients at risk for insufficient pain relief. Our aim is to investigate how often pain management is provided in the prehospital phase and emergency department (ED) and how this affects pain relief. A secondary goal is to identify prognostic factors for clinically relevant pain relief.

DESIGN

This prospective study (PROTACT) includes 697 patients admitted to ED with musculoskeletal extremity injury. Data regarding pain, injury, and pain management were collected using questionnaires and registries.

RESULTS

Although 39.9% of the patients used analgesics in the prehospital phase, most patients arrived at the ED with severe pain. Despite the high pain prevalence in the ED, only 35.7% of the patients received analgesics and 12.5% received adequate analgesic pain management. More than two-third of the patients still had moderate to severe pain at discharge. Clinically relevant pain relief was achieved in only 19.7% of the patients. Pain relief in the ED was higher in patients who received analgesics compared with those who did not. Besides analgesics, the type of injury and pain intensity on admission were associated with pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still room for improvement of musculoskeletal pain management in the chain of emergency care. A high percentage of patients were discharged with unacceptable pain levels. The use of multimodal pain management or the implementation of a pain management protocol might be useful methods to optimize pain relief. Additional research in these areas is needed.

Pain medication management of musculoskeletal conditions at first presentation in primary care: analysis of routinely collected medical record data

BACKGROUND

Primary care pharmacological management of new musculoskeletal conditions is not consistent, despite guidelines which recommend prescribing basic analgesics before higher potency medications such as opioids or non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).The objective was to describe pharmacological management of new musculoskeletal conditions and determine patient characteristics associated with type of medication prescribed.

METHODS

The study was set within a UK general practice database, the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (CiPCA). Patients aged 15 plus who had consulted for a musculoskeletal condition in 2006 but without a musculoskeletal consultation or analgesic prescription in the previous 12 months were identified from 12 general practices. Analgesic prescriptions within two weeks of first consultation were identified. The association of socio-demographic and clinical factors with receiving any analgesic prescription, and with strength of analgesic, were evaluated.

RESULTS

3236 patients consulted for a new musculoskeletal problem. 42% received a prescribed pain medication at that time. Of these, 47% were prescribed an NSAID, 24% basic analgesics, 18% moderate strength analgesics, and 11% strong analgesics. Increasing age was associated with an analgesic prescription but reduced likelihood of a prescription of NSAIDs or strong analgesics. Those in less deprived areas were less likely than those in the most deprived areas to be prescribed analgesics (odds ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.55, 0.86). Those without comorbidity were more likely to be prescribed NSAIDs (relative risk ratios (RRR) compared to basic analgesics 1.89; 95% CI 0.96, 3.73). Prescribing of stronger analgesics was related to prior history of analgesic medication (for example, moderate analgesics RRR 1.88; 95% CI 1.11, 3.10).

CONCLUSION

Over half of patients were not prescribed analgesia for a new episode of a musculoskeletal condition, but those that were often received NSAIDs. Analgesic choice appears multifactorial, but associations with age, comorbidity, and prior medication history suggest partial use of guidelines.

Oral oxycodone plus intravenous acetaminophen versus intravenous morphine sulfate in acute bone fracture pain control: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Bone fracture is a common cause of acute pain in emergency and orthopedics departments. Targeting the multifaceted mechanisms of pain with combinations of multiple analgesics (multimodal analgesia) can increase the pain control efforts efficacy and decrease the adverse effects of each medication.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-three patients with acute bone fracture were randomly allocated to two groups receiving intravenous morphine sulfate (74 patients) or oral oxycodone plus intravenous acetaminophen (79 patients). Pain scores and drugs' adverse effects were assessed 10, 30 and 60 min after treatment.

RESULTS

Pain scores were similar between groups before, 30 and 60 min after medication but patients in morphine sulfate group experienced less pain 10 min after medication. Eight (10.8%) patients in morphine sulfate group and 26 (32.9%) patients in acetaminophen/oxycodone group experienced nausea that was statistically significant higher (P value = 0.001). Itching was seen in 12 (15.1%) patients of acetaminophen/oxycodone group and three (4.0%) patients of patients in morphine sulfate group (P value = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous acetaminophen plus oral oxycodone is as effective as intravenous morphine sulfate in acute pain control in emergency department but with a less desirable safety profile.

Physical therapy in the emergency department: development of a novel practice venue

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The American Physical Therapy Association's Vision 2020 advocates that physical therapists be integral members of health care teams responsible for diagnosing and managing movement and functional disorders. This report details the design and early implementation of a physical therapist service in the emergency department (ED) of a large, urban hospital and presents recommendations for assessing the effectiveness of physical therapists in this setting.

CASE DESCRIPTION

Emergency departments serve multiple purposes in the American health care system, including care of patients with non-life-threatening illnesses. Physical therapists have expertise in screening for problems that are not amenable to physical therapy and in addressing a wide range of acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain problems. This expertise invites inclusion into the culture of ED practice. This administrative case report describes planning and early implementation of a physical therapist practice in an ED, shares preliminary outcomes, and provides suggestions for expansion and effectiveness testing of practice in this novel venue.

OUTCOMES

Referrals have increased and length of stay has decreased for patients receiving physical therapy. Preliminary surveys suggest high patient and practitioner satisfaction with physical therapy services. Outpatient physical therapy follow-up options were developed. Educating ED personnel to triage patients who show deficits in pain and functional mobility to physical therapy has challenged the usual culture of ED processes.

DISCUSSION

Practice in the hospital ED enables physical therapists to fully use their knowledge, diagnostic skills, and ability to manage acute pain and musculoskeletal injury. Recommendations for future action are made to encourage more institutions across the country to incorporate physical therapy in EDs to enhance the process and outcome of nonemergent care.