Improving analgesia prescription for trauma inpatients

Pharmacists in Trauma: a randomised controlled trial of emergency medicine pharmacists in trauma response teams

BACKGROUND

Analgesia is an important component for patient well-being, but commonly delayed during trauma resuscitation. The Pharmacists in Trauma trial assessed the effects of integrating pharmacists into trauma response teams to improve analgesia delivery and medication management.

METHODS

This unblinded randomised trial compared emergency medicine (EM) pharmacist involvement in trauma callouts versus standard care at an Australian level 1 trauma centre. Randomisation was performed via an online single sequence randomisation service. Eligible patients included those managed with a trauma callout during working hours of an EM pharmacist. Pharmacists were able to prescribe medications using a Partnered Pharmacist Medication Charting model. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had first dose analgesia within 30 min compared using the χ2 test.

RESULTS

From 15 July 2021 until 31 January 2022, there were 119 patients randomised with 37 patients excluded as no analgesia was required. There were 82 patients included for analysis, 39 in the control arm and 43 in the intervention arm. The primary outcome was achieved in 25 (64.1%) patients in the control arm and 36 (83.7%) patients in the pharmacist arm (relative risk 1.31; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.71; p=0.042). Time to analgesia in the control arm was 28 (22-35) mins and 20 (15-26 mins) with pharmacist involvement; p=0.025. In the pharmacist arm, the initial dose of analgesia was prescribed by the pharmacist for 38 (88.4%) patients. There were 27 other medications prescribed by the pharmacist for the management of these patients. There were no differences in emergency and trauma centre or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Addition of the EM pharmacist in trauma response teams improved time to analgesia. Involvement of an EM pharmacist in trauma reception and resuscitation may assist by optimising medication management, with members of the team more available to focus on other life-saving interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000338864.

Using Theories, Models, and Frameworks to Inform Implementation Cycles of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems in Tertiary Health Care Settings: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are essential components of modern health system service delivery, particularly within acute care settings such as hospitals. Theories, models, and frameworks may assist in facilitating the implementation processes associated with CDSS innovation and its use within these care settings. These processes include context assessments to identify key determinants, implementation plans for adoption, promoting ongoing uptake, adherence, and long-term evaluation. However, there has been no prior review synthesizing the literature regarding the theories, models, and frameworks that have informed the implementation and adoption of CDSSs within hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to identify the theory, model, and framework approaches that have been used to facilitate the implementation and adoption of CDSSs in tertiary health care settings, including hospitals. The rationales reported for selecting these approaches, including the limitations and strengths, are described.

METHODS

A total of 5 electronic databases were searched (CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Embase) to identify studies that implemented or adopted a CDSS in a tertiary health care setting using an implementation theory, model, or framework. No date or language limits were applied. A narrative synthesis was conducted using full-text publications and abstracts. Implementation phases were classified according to the "Active Implementation Framework stages": exploration (feasibility and organizational readiness), installation (organizational preparation), initial implementation (initiating implementation, ie, training), full implementation (sustainment), and nontranslational effectiveness studies.

RESULTS

A total of 81 records (42 full text and 39 abstracts) were included. Full-text studies and abstracts are reported separately. For full-text studies, models (18/42, 43%), followed by determinants frameworks (14/42,33%), were most frequently used to guide adoption and evaluation strategies. Most studies (36/42, 86%) did not list the limitations associated with applying a specific theory, model, or framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Models and related quality improvement methods were most frequently used to inform CDSS adoption. Models were not typically combined with each other or with theory to inform full-cycle implementation strategies. The findings highlight a gap in the application of implementation methods including theories, models, and frameworks to facilitate full-cycle implementation strategies for hospital CDSSs.

The Pain Management of Trauma Patients in the Emergency Department

The vast majority of injured patients suffer from pain. Systematic assessment of pain on admission to the emergency department (ED) is a cornerstone of translating the best treatment strategies for patient care into practice. Pain must be measured with severity scales that are validated in clinical practice, including for specific populations (such as children and older adults). Although primary care ED of trauma patients focuses on resuscitation, diagnosis and treatment, pain assessment and management remains a critical element as professionals are not prepared to provide effective and early therapy. To date, most EDs have pain assessment and management protocols that take into account the patient's hemodynamic status and clinical condition and give preference to non-pharmacological approaches where possible. When selecting medications, the focus is on those that are least disruptive to hemodynamic status. Pain relief may still be necessary in hemodynamically unstable patients, but caution should be exercised, especially when using opioids, as absorption may be impaired or shock may be exacerbated. The analgesic dose of ketamine is certainly an attractive option. Fentanyl is clearly superior to other opioids in initial resuscitation and treatment as it has minimal effects on hemodynamic status and does not cause central nervous system depression. Inhaled analgesia techniques and ultrasound-guided nerve blocks are also increasingly effective solutions. A multimodal pain approach, which involves the use of two or more drugs with different mechanisms of action, plays an important role in the relief of trauma pain. All EDs must have policies and promote the adoption of procedures that use multimodal strategies for effective pain management in all injured patients.

Effectiveness, safety and implementation results of the strategies aimed at the safe prescription of medications in university hospitals in adult patients. Systematic review

Introduction: A broad range of practices aimed at improving the effectives and safety of this process have been documented over the past few years. Objective: to establish the effectiveness, safety and results of the implementation of these strategies in adult patients in university hospitals. Methodology: A review of systematic reviews was conducted, in addition to a database search in the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Epistemonikos, LILACS and gray literature. Any strategy aimed at reducing prescription-associated risks was included as intervention. This review followed the protocol registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020165143. Results: 7,637 studies were identified, upon deleting duplicate references. After excluding records based on titles and abstracts, 111 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Fifteen studies were included in the review. Several interventions grouped into 5 strategies addressed to the prescription process were identified; the use of computerized medical order entry systems (CPOE), whether integrated or not with computerized decision support systems (CDSS), was the most effective approach. Conclusions: The beneficial effects of the interventions intended to the prescription process in terms of efficacy were identified; however, safety and implementation results were not thoroughly assessed. The heterogeneity of the studies and the low quality of the reviews, preclude a meta-analysis.