Background: Trauma is a common aetiology of acute pain in the emergency setting, and traumatic injuries have been recognised as a global public health crisis leading to numerous deaths and disabilities. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of acute pain among high acuity trauma patients presenting to a public sector emergency medical service and to describe prehospital acute traumatic pain assessment and management practices amongst emergency care providers in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic patient care reports of trauma patients treated by the South African Western Cape Emergency Medical Services between January 1 and December 31, 2017 was conducted. Stratified random sampling was utilised to select 2401 trauma patients out of 24,575 that met the inclusion criteria. Results: Of the 2401 patients reviewed, 435 (18.1%) had a pain score recorded, of which 423 (97.2%) were experiencing pain. An additional 8.1% (n = 194) of patients had pain or tenderness mentioned in the working diagnosis but no pain score noted. Eighty-one (18.6%) patients experienced mild pain, 175 (40.2%) moderate pain and 167 (38.2%) severe pain. No association was found between a pain score recorded and age group (≤ 14 versus > 14 years) (p = 0.649) or gender (p = 0.139). Only 7.6% of patients with moderate-to-severe pain and 2.8% of all trauma patients received any form of analgesic medication. No association was found between the administration of analgesia and age group (≤ 14 versus > 14 years) (p = 0.151) or gender (p = 0.054). Patients were more likely to receive analgesia if they had a pain score recorded (p < 0.001), were managed by advanced life support practitioners (p < 0.001) or had severe pain (p = 0.001).

Pre-hospital versus in-hospital thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (Review)

Background. Acute pain is a common reason for seeking prehospital emergency care. Regrettably, acute pain is often underestimated and poorly managed in this setting. The scoping review was conducted to gain insight into existing research on the topic and to make recommendations for future work. Objectives. To identify all available evidence related to acute pain assessment and management in the African prehospital setting, describe the extent of the evidence, encapsulate findings, and identify research gaps. Methods. The scoping review considered primary and secondary research related to acute pain assessment and management of both medical and traumatic origins in all age groups in the African prehospital setting. The search strategy aimed to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing research which met the inclusion criteria. Potentially eligible studies were identified by a comprehensive search of electronic databases, trial registers, dissertation/thesis databases, grey literature databases, and conference proceedings. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Results. The comprehensive search identified 3823 potential studies, duplicate titles were removed, and 3358 titles/abstracts were screened. Full text of 66 potentially eligible titles was screened, 60 were excluded, and six publications met the inclusion criteria. Despite recommendations for pain assessment during general patient care, most studies reported no/limited pain assessment. In general, pain management was concluded to be insufficient and not conforming to best practice. Conclusions. Only six publications addressing prehospital acute pain care in Africa could be identified, possibly indicative of a knowledge gap. Future research is indicated to enable a better understanding of the epidemiology of acute pain and barriers and enablers of acute pain care and to develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) catering for all EMS systems in Africa. Additionally, educational initiatives should be implemented to improve the quality of acute pain care and to monitor quality through continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs.

No abstract

Background: Acute pain is frequently encountered in the prehospital setting, and therefore, a fundamental aspect of quality emergency care. Research has shown a positive association between healthcare providers' knowledge of, and attitudes towards pain and pain management practices. This study aimed to describe the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of emergency care providers regarding acute pain assessment and management in the prehospital setting, in the Western Cape, South Africa. The specific objectives were to, identify gaps in pain knowledge; assess attitudes regarding pain assessment and management; describe pain assessment and management behaviours and practices; and identify barriers to and enablers of pain care. Methods: A web-based descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among emergency care providers of all qualifications, using a face-validated Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Pain survey. Results: Responses of 100 participants were included in the analysis. The survey response rate could not be calculated. The mean age of respondents was 34.74 (SD 8.13) years and the mean years' experience 10.02 (SD 6.47). Most respondents were male (69%), employed in the public/government sector (93%) as operational practitioners (85%) with 54% of respondents having attended medical education on pain care in the last 2 years. The mean percentage for knowledge and attitudes regarding pain among emergency care providers was 58.01% (SD 15.66) with gaps identified in various aspects of pain and pain care. Practitioners with higher qualifications, more years' experience and those who did not attend medical education on pain, achieved higher scores. Alcohol and drug use by patients were the most selected barrier to pain care while the availability of higher qualified practitioners was the most selected enabler. When asked to record pain scores, practitioners were less inclined to assign scores which were self-reported by the patients in the case scenarios. The participant dropout rate was 35%. Conclusion: Our results suggest that there is suboptimal knowledge and attitudes regarding pain among emergency care providers in the Western Cape, South Africa. Gaps in pain knowledge, attitudes and practices were identified. Some barriers and enablers of pain care in the South African prehospital setting were identified but further research is indicated.

Background Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is an advanced airway skill commonly performed in the pre-hospital setting globally. In South Africa, pre-hospital RSI was first approved for non-physician providers by the Health Professions Council of South Africa in 2009 and introduced as part of the scope of practice of degree qualified Emergency Care Practitioners (ECPs) only. The research study aimed to investigate and describe, based on the components of the minimum standards of pre-hospital RSI in South Africa, specific areas of interest related to current pre-hospital RSI practice. Methods An online descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted amongst operational ECPs in the pre-hospital setting of South Africa, using convenience and snowball sampling strategies. Results A total of 87 participants agreed to partake. Eleven (12.6%) incomplete survey responses were excluded while 76 (87.4%) were included in the data analysis. The survey response rate could not be calculated. Most participants were operational in Gauteng (n = 27, 35.5%) and the Western Cape (n = 25, 32.9%). Overall participants reported that their education and training were perceived as being of good quality. The majority of participants (n = 69, 90.8%) did not participate in an internship programme before commencing duties as an independent practitioner. Most RSI and post-intubation equipment were reported to be available; however, our results found that introducer stylets and/or bougies and end-tidal carbon dioxide devices are not available to some participants. Only 50 (65.8%) participants reported the existence of a clinical governance system within their organisation. Furthermore, our results indicate a lack of clinical feedback, deficiency of an RSI database, infrequent clinical review meetings and a shortage of formal consultation frameworks. Conclusion The practice of safe and effective pre-hospital RSI, performed by non-physician providers or ECPs, relies on comprehensive implementation and adherence to all the components of the minimum standards. Although there is largely an apparent alignment with the minimum standards, recurrent revision of practice needs to occur to ensure alignment with recommendations. Additionally, some areas may benefit from further research to improve current practice.

No abstract

No abstract