Educational Intervention Effect on Pain Management Quality in Emergency Department; a Clinical Audit

Severe pain management in the emergency department: patient pathway as a new factor associated with IV morphine prescription

Background

Across the world, 25-29% of the population suffer from pain. Pain is the most frequent reason for an emergency department (ED) visit. This symptom is involved in approximately 70% of all ED visits. The effective management of acute pain with adequate analgesia remains a challenge, especially for severe pain. Intravenous (IV) morphine protocols are currently indicated. These protocols are based on patient-reported scores, most often after an immediate evaluation of pain intensity at triage. However, they are not systematically prescribed. This aspect could be explained by the fact that physicians individualize opioid pain management for each patient and each care pathway to determine the best benefit-risk balance. Few data are available regarding bedside organizational factors involved in this phenomenon.

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the organizational factors associated with no IV morphine prescription in a standardized context of opioid management in a tertiary-care ED.

Methods

A 3-month prospective study with a case-control design was conducted in a French university hospital ED. This study focused on factors associated with protocol avoidance despite a visual analog scale (VAS) ≥60 or a numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥6 at triage. Pain components, physician characteristics, patient epidemiologic characteristics, and care pathways were considered. Qualitative variables (percentages) were compared using Fisher's exact test or the chi-squared tests. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables. The results were expressed as means with their standard deviation (SD). Factors associated with morphine avoidance were identified by logistic regression.

Results

A total of 204 patients were included in this study. A total of 46 cases (IV morphine) and 158 controls (IV morphine avoidance) were compared (3:1 ratio). Pain patterns and patient's epidemiologic characteristics were not associated with an IV morphine prescription. Regarding NRS intervals, the results suggest a practice disconnected from the patient's initial self-report. IV morphine avoidance was significantly associated with care pathways. A significant difference between the IV morphine group and the IV morphine avoidance group was observed for "self-referral" [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.11, 95% CIs: 2.32-12.18, p < 0.0001] and patients' trajectories (Fisher's exact test; p < 0.0001), suggesting IV morphine avoidance in ambulatory pathways. In addition, "junior physician grade" was associated with IV morphine avoidance (aOR: 2.35, 95% CIs: 1.09-5.25, p = 0.03), but physician gender was not.

Conclusion

This bedside case-control study highlights that IV morphine avoidance in the ED could be associated with ambulatory pathways. It confirms the decreased choice of "NRS-only" IV morphine protocols for all patients, including non-trauma patterns. Modern pain education should propose new tools for pain evaluation that integrate the heterogeneity of ED pathways.

Periosteal Nerve Block Vs. Intravenous Morphine in Pain Relief of Distal Radius and Ulna Fracture; a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

Distal forearm fractures' realignment and fixation is a painful procedure. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of periosteal nerve block and intravenous morphine in distal radius and ulna fractures' pain management.

Methods

In the present randomized, parallel, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, patients with distal radius or ulna fractures were divided into two groups. In the first group, for periosteal nerve block, 1% lidocaine was injected at a distance of 6 to 8 cm near the wrist from the lateral radius and medial ulna. In the second group, morphine sulfate at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg was slowly injected through the peripheral vein within 5 minutes. The visual analog scale (VAS) score was evaluated before the intervention and every 15 minutes until 90 minutes after the intervention and was compared between the two groups.

Results

75 subjects were studied (39 in the periosteal nerve block and 36 in the intravenous morphine group). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of mean age (p = 0.384), gender distribution (p = 0.464), past medical history (p = 0.106), trauma type (p = 0.836), fracture type (p = 0.613), and baseline pain severity on VAS (p = 0.987). Both methods reduced the VAS scores during the 90 minutes of the study. The mean pain scores of the patients in the periosteal nerve block group with 2.56±1.44, 2.15±1.11, 2.66±1.26, and 3±1.27 at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after the analgesic injection, respectively, were significantly lower than those of the intravenous morphine group with 4.75±1.27, 4.22±1.22, 3.97±1.27, and 4.13±1.35, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In the present study, no local or systemic complications were observed in the periosteal nerve block group, while the complications of dyspnea, vomiting, and pruritus were reported by 5.5%, 2.8%, and 2.8%, respectively, in the intravenous morphine group. Moreover, the percentage of need for additional analgesia in the intravenous morphine group was higher than that of the periosteal nerve block group.

Conclusion

In the first hour after the intervention, pain reduction in periosteal block was significantly higher than intravenous morphine administration. Also, the incidence of complications and the need for additional analgesia were lower in the periosteal block group compared to intravenous morphine administration.

Pain Medicine Education in Emergency Medicine Residency Programs

Background Pain is a common complaint in the emergency department (ED), yet there is a lack of robust pain curricula in emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. In this study, we investigated pain education in EM residencies and various factors related to educational development. Methodology This was a prospective study collecting online survey results sent to Program Directors, Associate Program Directors, and Assistant Program Directors of EM residencies in the United States. Descriptive analyses with nonparametric tests were performed to investigate relationships between these factors, including educational hours, level of educational collaboration with pain medicine specialists, and multimodal therapy utilization. Results The overall individual response rate was 39.8% (252 out of 634 potential respondents), representing 164 out of 220 identified EM residencies with 110 (50%) Program Directors responding. Traditional classroom lectures were the most common modality for the delivery of pain medicine content. EM textbooks were the most common resource utilized for curriculum development. An average of 5.7 hours per year was devoted to pain education. Up to 46.8% of respondents reported poor or absent educational collaboration with pain medicine specialists. Greater collaboration levels were associated with greater hours devoted to pain education (p = 0.01), perceived resident interest in acute and chronic pain management education (p < 0.001), and resident utilization of regional anesthesia (p = <0.01). Faculty and resident interest in acute and chronic pain management education were similar to each other and high on the Likert scale, with higher scores correlating to greater hours devoted to pain education (p = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively). Faculty expertise in pain medicine was rated the most important factor in improving pain education in their programs. Conclusions Pain education is a necessity for residents to adequately treat pain in the ED, but remains challenging and undervalued. Faculty expertise was identified as a factor limiting pain education among EM residents. Collaboration with pain medicine specialists and recruitment of EM faculty with expertise in pain medicine are ways to improve pain education of EM residents.

Analgesic Treatment and the Patients' Opinion on the Hospital Emergency Department

Aim: The aim of the study was to analyze whether a patient’s opinion is related to the effect of analgesic treatment. Methods: The study was conducted using a survey questionnaire among adult patients admitted to the hospital emergency department in March 2021. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) was used to assess pain. Patients were asked to rate the intensity of pain during their stay in the emergency department in three situations: (1) at admission; (2) during the stay; and (3) upon discharge. The relationships between qualitative variables were assessed by the chi-squared test. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: There was no statistical dependence between the patient’s opinion about the medical institution and results of the effectiveness of analgesic treatments (p = 0.056). The highest percentage of patients satisfied with the received treatment were those who did not feel pain during ED discharge (94.12%), and the lowest were those who complained of severe pain during ED discharge (63.91%). The average mark for the functioning and organization of the emergency department was 7.44 (±2.04). Only 54 patients (29.83%) had taken pain medication before deciding to visit ED. Conclusions: No statistical dependency between the effect of the analgesic treatment and the patient’s opinion has been observed. The majority of patients with pain discomfort visit emergency departments without looking for consultation in other locations or without taking analgesics. In the considered institution, patients were satisfied with the analgesic treatment, staff performance, and with the organization of the department.