How can pain management in the emergency department be improved? Findings from multiple case study analysis of pain management in three UK emergency departments

How do emergency departments respond to ambulance pre-alert calls? A qualitative exploration of the management of pre-alerts in UK emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Calls to emergency departments (EDs) from ambulances to alert them to a critical case being transported to that facility that requires a special response ('pre-alerts') have been shown to improve outcomes for patients requiring immediate time-critical treatment (eg, stroke). However, little is known about their usefulness for other patients and the processes involved in ED responses to them. This study aimed to understand how pre-alerts influence patient care in the ED.

METHODS

We undertook non-participant observation (162 hours, 143 pre-alerts) and semi-structured interviews with staff (n=40) in six UK EDs between August 2022 and April 2023 focusing on how ED staff respond to pre-alert calls and what influences their response. Observation notes and interview transcripts were imported into NVivo and analysed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Pre-alert calls involved significant time and resources for ED staff but they were valued as they enabled staff to prepare for a patient's arrival (practically and psychologically). High demand and handover delays at ED created additional pre-alerts due to ambulance clinician concerns about the impact of long waits on patients.Despite the risk of pre-alert fatigue from calls for patients considered not to require a special response, ED clinicians appreciated timely pre-alert information, perceiving a higher risk from underalerting than overalerting. Variation in ED response was influenced by individual and organisational factors, particularly the resources available at the time of pre-alert. Unclear ED processes for receiving, documenting and sharing information about pre-alerts increased the risk of information loss.

CONCLUSION

Improving processes for receiving and sharing pre-alert information may help ED clinicians prepare appropriately for incoming patients. Alternative routes for ambulance clinicians to seek advice on borderline pre-alert patients may help to improve the appropriateness of pre-alerts.

Assessment of Barriers, Supports, and Context to Implement Best Practice Pain Management in the Emergency Department: The IMPAINED Study

AIM

To assess the emergency department practice context and identify strategies to improve outcomes of patients with acute pain.

BACKGROUND

Effective treatment of acute pain in the emergency department depends upon clinicians adopting pain interventions into practice. However, it is well-recognized that acute pain is often undertreated. The local practice context strongly influences clinicians' adoption of interventions into their clinical practice. An assessment of this practice context can inform implementation interventions and strategies to improve outcomes for patients with acute pain.

METHODS

Chart audit, staff survey, and staff working groups were conducted from June 2020 to May 2021 Data were analyzed and synthesized across sources informed by assessment elements of the Ottawa model of research use (OMRU) implementation model and expert recommendations for implementing change strategies.

RESULTS

The OMRU facilitated contextual assessment of pain treatment practice in the emergency department and the development of implementation strategies. Adoption of evidence-based pain interventions was low in the sample studied. Workflow and workload were the primary barriers to evidence-based pain practices by potential adopters, while positive beliefs and high awareness of evidence-based pain interventions were supportive factors. Implementation strategies were informed by assessment findings and mapped to the Ottawa model and expert recommendations for implementing change elements.

CONCLUSION

The adoption of evidence into practice in the emergency department relies upon a comprehensive assessment of the local context. The use of the OMRU assessment process resulted in meaningful engagement with staff and a deeper understanding of local pain management practices. Clinicians view evidence-based pain management as important, however, there are competing priorities within the emergency department, such as patient flow and triage. This study provides an exemplar of utilizing an implementation framework to identify pain practices within the emergency department.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Achieving impactful change in clinical practice to improve patient outcomes should start with the application of implementation methods that enable comprehensive analysis of the local practice context. The assessment should begin with collaboration with local clinicians that persist throughout the life of the study to ensure change is sustainable.

Maintaining a safe environment in emergency department waiting rooms

Increasing demand, overcrowding and insufficient resources have led to situations where patient care is delivered in emergency department (ED) waiting rooms. For nurses undertaking triage in the ED waiting room, overcrowding is challenging, particularly in terms of assessing patients in a timely fashion, monitoring patients for clinical deterioration and ordering investigations. Additionally, long waiting times and a lack of information can lead to communication breakdowns with patients and, at times, patient confrontations with ED staff. This article explores the effects of the busy environment in ED waiting rooms on patients and staff such as triage nurses and waiting room nurses.

Patient and staff perceptions of short procedural sedation with propofol for joint and fracture reductions in the Emergency Department: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Emergency Department (ED) propofol sedation is widely used to facilitate reduction of fractures and dislocations, but little is known about patient and staff perceptions of the practice. Better understanding of these aspects may improve patient care.

METHODS

A qualitative exploratory study involving semi-structured patient interviews and ED healthcare professional focus groups. Interviews with adult patients (≥16 years) >1 hour after their sedation episode were audio-recorded, anonymised and transcribed verbatim to an electronic database. Thematic analysis using a general inductive method led to development of codes and themes. ED focus groups recordings were similarly transcribed and triangulated to patient interview outcomes.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after 16 patient interviews. Emergent central themes from a patient perspective were: 'fear of the unknown' and 'expressed relief that the procedure was comfortable.' Key themes included 'trust in the clinical team,' 'efficacy of pain management prior to sedation' and 'quality of the information delivered to patients.' Focus group discussions around patient interview outcomes identified triage, analgesia delivery, communication, and consideration of the environment as areas for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

ED procedural sedation with propofol is generally very well accepted by patients and clinical staff but there is scope to improve patient-focus and increase satisfaction.

Factors that affect pain management in adults diagnosed with acute appendicitis in the emergency department: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Analgesic treatment, including with opioids, can safely be given to patients who are suspected of having appendicitis. The study examined factors which may influence the treatment of pain in appendicitis in the adult emergency department (ED). A secondary objective was to determine if analgesia affected clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study examined medical records of all adult patients with a discharge diagnosis of appendicitis. Patients were categorized based on the type of analgesia received in the ED. Variables included the day of week and staffing shift of presentation, gender, age, and triage pain scale, as well as time to ED discharge, imaging, operation, and hospital discharge. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were performed to determine which factors influenced treatment and affected outcomes.

RESULTS

Records of 1839 patients were categorized into three groups - 883 (48%) did not receive analgesia, 571 (31%) received only non-opioid medications, and 385 (21%) received at least one opioid. Patients with a higher triage pain level were significantly more likely to receive analgesia (4-6: OR = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.2-2.84, 7-9: OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 2.18-5.17, 10: OR = 10.78; 95% CI = 6.38-18.23) and at least one opioid (4-6: OR = 2.88; 95% CI = 1.13-7.34, 7-9: OR = 4.36; 95% CI = 1.73-11.01, 10: OR = 6.23; 95% CI = 2.42-16.09). Male gender was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of receiving analgesia (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.61-0.9), but a significantly greater likelihood of receiving at least one opioid given that they received any pain medication (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.41-2.48). Patients aged 25-64 years old were significantly more likely to receive at least one opioid if they received any pain medication (25-44: OR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.08-2.02, 45-64: OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.15-2.76). Presentation to the ED on Sundays was associated with lower rates of opioid treatment (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.42-0.94). Regarding clinical outcomes, patients who received analgesia waited longer for imaging (+0.58 h; 95% CI = 0.31-0.85), stayed longer in the ED (+2.2 h; 95% CI = 1.60-2.79), and had a slightly longer hospitalization (+0.62d; 95% CI = 0.34-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of patients with appendicitis didn't receive analgesia, with most of those treated receiving only non-opioid analgesia. Older age and Sunday presentations were associated with less opioid treatment. Patients who received analgesia waited longer for imaging, stayed longer in the ED, and had a longer hospitalization.

Ultrasound-guided selective peripheral nerve block compared with the sub-dissociative dose of ketamine for analgesia in patients with extremity injuries

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided selective peripheral nerve block (PNB) and sub-dissociative dose ketamine (SDK) for management of acute pain in patients with extremity injuries presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted in the ED of a tertiary care Institute. The patients were provided with either ultrasound-guided selective PNB or SDK. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain in numerical rating scale (NRS) by at least 3 points without rescue analgesia. The secondary outcomes were the need for rescue analgesia, adverse events, and patient satisfaction on either arm.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients with isolated traumatic extremity injuries were included in the final analysis. The NRS score was significantly lower in the PNB group compared to the SDK group at 30, 60,120, 180-, and 240-min post-intervention [group ∼ time interaction, F (5, 647) = 21.53, p ≤ 0.001]. All the patients in the PNB group exhibited primary outcome (NRS ≥3 reductions) at 30 min post-intervention compared with 36 (65%) in the SDK group [-1.02(-1.422,0.622)]. Rescue analgesia was required in 10 (18%) patients in the SDK group compared to none in the PNB group [0.663(0.277,1.050)]. The decrease in NRS score from baseline at 30 min was significantly higher in PNB groups compared to the SDK group [-2.166(-2.640, -1.692)]. The most common side effect reported in the SDK group was dizziness 35(64%), followed by nausea 15(27%). None of the patients in the PNB group reported any complications. Patient satisfaction was higher in the PNB group than SDK group.

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that ultrasound-guided PNB is superior to SDK in terms of its analgesic efficacy in the management of acute pain due to extremity injuries and is associated with higher patient satisfaction. The need for rescue analgesia was significantly less in the PNB group. SDK was associated with a high incidence of dizziness and nausea.

Access to pain management from a legal and human rights perspective

Patients who experience pain require adequate pain management provided by healthcare professionals who have access to pain relief medicines and are trained in the assessment and treatment of pain. Patients also need their pain to be acknowledged, understood and believed. These patient needs in relation to pain management can be considered from a legal and human rights perspective. This article describes human rights legislation in the UK, how it affects healthcare practice and what it means for healthcare professionals. It discusses barriers to pain management, the concept of pain management as a human right, the obligation of healthcare organisations to provide pain management and the limits to patients' rights to pain management. Finally, it proposes strategies that nurses can use to uphold a patient's human rights in relation to pain management.

Pain management in children and young adults with minor injury in emergency departments in the UK and Ireland: a PERUKI service evaluation

BACKGROUND

Management of acute pain should commence at the earliest opportunity, as it has many short-term and long-term consequences. A research priority of Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI) was to examine paediatric pain practices.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the outcomes for paediatric pain management of minor injuries presenting to emergency departments (EDs) across PERUKI.

METHODS

A retrospective service evaluation was performed over a 7-day period in late 2016/early 2017 across PERUKI sites, and analysis performed using an adapted Donabedian framework. Patients under 16 years presenting with minor trauma were eligible, and data were collected on prehospital management, pain assessment, analgesia administered and injury diagnosed.

RESULTS

Thirty-one sites submitted data on 3888 patients. There were 111 missed cases (missed rate 3.6%). The most common injuries were sprains, lacerations, contusions/abrasions and fractures. Documentation of receiving analgesia before arrival in ED occurred in 21% of patients (n=818). A pain assessment was documented in 57.5% of patients (n=2235) during their ED visit, and 3.5% of patients had their pain reassessed (n=138). Of the patients who presented in severe pain (pain score 7-10 or rated severe), 11% were reassessed. Site variability of initial pain assessment ranged from 1.4% to 100% (median 62%). The characteristics of the top quartile performing centres against the bottom quartile performing centres based on completion rate of initial pain scores were identified.

CONCLUSION

Pain assessment was documented in under 60% of children with minor injury, re-assessment of pain was almost completely absent, data and outcomes were missing in a substantial volume of patients, indicating that pain management and the associated outcomes have not been adequately addressed and prioritised within existing network structures and processes.

Managing acute abdominal pain in the emergency centre: Lessons from a patient's experience

Pain is one of the most common reasons people present to the emergency centre with 7-10% of presentations being due to acute abdominal pain. However, pain is also often neglected by clinicians in emergency centres. The well validated South African Triage Score (SATS) incorporates pain assessment in the prioritising of patients with the aim of guiding clinicians. Based on the SATS, severe pain (a score of ≥8 out of 10) should prompt the clinician to initiate treatment within 10 min of presentation, as unmanaged pain has multiple negative consequences, including poor outcomes of the acute incident with delayed healing and increased risk of developing chronic pain. In this commentary, we present a patient's experience when attending an emergency centre for acute abdominal pain, describe relevant pain mechanisms and highlight the stages where clinical management could have been optimised.

Cognitive impairment and pain relief following hip fractures: a case control study

Hip fractures represent a significant workload of both emergency and orthopaedic departments within the National Health Service (NHS). Pain relief is key in treating hip fractures as highlighted by both National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma (BOAST) guidelines. However, the literature shows that patients with cognitive impairment tend to have inconsistent pain management, leading to worse outcomes. We conducted a case–control study looking at 296 patients who presented with hip fractures to a major trauma centre between 1 December 2019 and 30 May 2020. Cognition was assessed using pre-recorded Abbreviated Mental Test Scores (AMTS). There was no significant difference between pain relief provided to patients with or without cognitive impairment in both the pre-hospital (p = 0.208) and Accident & Emergency (A&E) (p = 0.154) setting. A larger proportion of patients in A&E did not receive any pain relief (18.6% versus 42.2%). Pre-hospital, the higher the pain score, the stronger the analgesia given (R = 0.435, p = 0.000). This relationship was present in both the cognitively impaired (R = 0.572, p = 0.000) and cognitively intact groups (R = 0.390 p = 0.000). Strength of analgesia and pain scores did not correlate in A&E (R = 0.014, p = 0.826). Cognition did not impact the time to analgesia both pre-hospital (p = 0.291) and in A&E (p = 0.332); however, patients waited significantly longer to receive pain relief in A&E (29.61 minutes versus 150.28 minutes). Fascia-iliaca blocks were administered to 58.4% of the cohort, with no significant difference noted between cognition status. Overall, cognition does not impact pain management both pre-hospital and in A&E. There is still room for improvement, particularly in the assessment of pain in the cognitively impaired. A possible solution is the utilisation of the Bolton Pain Assessment Tool, a validated pain assessment tool for the cognitively impaired that has been utilised in the trauma setting with good effect.

Emergency care providers' perspectives of acute pain assessment and management in the prehospital setting, in the Western Cape, South Africa: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of evidence suggests that pain knowledge and management are poor, perhaps more so in the prehospital setting. The daily challenges that emergency care providers face in dealing with prehospital pain remain unclear. This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of acute prehospital pain assessment and management in the Western Cape, South Africa.

METHODS

A series of focus group discussions, using a constructivist paradigm and qualitative content analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The key themes emerging from six focus groups (total 25 emergency care providers) related to the difficulties of assessing pain in this setting, factors affecting clinical reasoning in this (hostile) setting, the realities of prehospital pain care for non-advanced life support practitioners, along with emergency departments' lack of understanding and appreciation of the prehospital environment, and participants' suggestions to improve pain practice.

CONCLUSION

Several barriers and enablers, some novel, to pain assessment and management in the South African prehospital setting were identified. Our findings provide valuable insight and understanding of the challenges related to pain care prehospital providers face, in other similar prehospital settings, but also to the global body of knowledge on prehospital barriers and enablers of pain assessment and management.

Evaluation and treatment of pain in the pre-hospital setting. A comparison between patients with a hip injury, chest pain and abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of patients who call 112 in Sweden do so because of pain. The purpose of this study was to compare three of the most common types of pain presented by the patients: chest pain, abdominal pain and hip injury, in terms of initial assessment, intensity, treatment and effect of treatment. The overall rationale was to evaluate whether the early assessment and treatment of pain in the pre-hospital setting is optimal or whether there is room for improvement.

METHODS

Observational study during 2016 including 1234 patients triaged to chest pain, abdominal pain and hip injury by the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in Gothenburg, Sweden.

RESULTS

Severe pain on the arrival of the EMS was described by 39% of patients with a hip injury, 27% with abdominal pain and 15% with chest pain. Analgesics were given to 58% of patients with a hip injury, 35% with chest pain and 34% with abdominal pain. A lower intensity of pain at re-evaluation was observed in 80% of patients with a hip injury, 57% with chest pain and 43% with abdominal pain. Administration of analgesics increased with the duration of pre-hospital care time in all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a hip injury had the most severe pain and they received most pain-relieving medication. Overall, a relatively small proportion of patients with pain received pain-relieving medication and there appears to be an extensive room for improvement.

Structures of paediatric pain management: a PERUKI service evaluation study

BACKGROUND

Pain is very common in childhood emergency department (ED) attendances, but is under-recognised and undertreated. Sequential national paediatric analgesia audits demonstrate suboptimal outcomes in several domains. The Donabedian framework examines the structures, processes and outcomes to evaluate quality of care. To date there has been no network-level exploration of structures supporting analgesic practices or attempts to address failure to attain national standards.

OBJECTIVE

To benchmark current variation in assessment and management of childhood pain at network level.

METHODS

Online survey distributed between December 2016 and January 2017 exploring health system structures including pain score tools, pain assessment/protocols, training, practice guidelines and analgesic agent usage. We explored structures, processes and outcomes to identify interventions, and their potential effectiveness and feasibility.

RESULTS

In total 95% (38/40 sites) responded, including 25 tertiary (66%) and 13 secondary hospitals (34%), with a total annual paediatric ED census of 1 225 000 (range 11 500-65 000). Availability of analgesics varied included topical wound anaesthesia in 29/38 sites (76%), oral diclofenac sodium in 22/38 sites (58%) and tramadol in 16/38 sites (42%). Pain assessment was mandatory in initial assessment in 34/38 sites (89%), and 18/38 sites had a policy on frequency of pain assessment (47%). Local guidance aligned with national guidance in 21/38 sites (55%). There was no staff training at induction/orientation in 14/38 sites (37%) and no mandatory competencies in pain management in 23/38 sites (61%). Play specialist services were available in 21/38 sites (55%).

CONCLUSION

Despite national guidance and recommendations from multiple audits, there are substantial variations in structures relating to pain assessment and management across sites. The lack of uniformity is a likely root cause for the persistent suboptimal practices identified by serial national audits. A whole system and person-centred approach to improving pain outcomes by utilising effective interventions seeks to improve paediatric pain outcomes.