Although the verbal numeric scale (VNS) is used frequently at patients' bedsides, it has never been formally validated in children with acute pain. In order to validate this scale, a prospective cohort study was performed in children between 8 and 17years presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) with acute pain. Pain was graded using the VNS, the visual analogue scale (VAS), and the verbal rating scale (VRS). A second assessment was done before discharge. We determined a priori that in order to be valid, the VNS would need to: correlate with the VAS (concurrent validity); decrease after intervention to reduce pain (construct validity); and be associated with the VRS categories (content validity). The VNS interchangeability with the VAS, its minimal clinically significant difference, and test-retest reliability were also determined. A total of 202 patients (mean age: 12.2+/-2.6years) were enrolled. The VNS correlated with the VAS: r(ic)=0.93, p<0.001. There were differences in the VNS before versus after interventions (p<0.001), and between VRS categories (mild versus moderate, p<0.001; moderate versus severe, p<0.001). The 95% limits of agreement (interchangeability) between VNS/VAS were outside the a priori set limit of +/-2.0: -1.8, 2.5. The VNS minimal clinically significant difference was 1. The VNS had good test-retest reliability with 95% limits of agreement of -0.9 and 1.2. In conclusion, the VNS provides a valid and reliable scale to evaluate acute pain in children aged 8-17years but is not interchangeable with the VAS.

BackgroundNeedle-related procedures are the most important source of pain in children in hospital setting. Unmanaged pain could result in short- and long-term physiological, psychological, and emotional consequences. Although the efficacy of numerous interventions has been evaluated, procedural pain management is often suboptimal in children undergoing needle-related procedures. The main objective of this systematic review is to examine the evidence for the efficacy of the Buzzy® device for needle-related procedural pain in children.MethodsAn electronic search will be conducted in the following databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. There will be no restriction regarding the language, date of publication, and publication status. Eligible studies will be randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy® device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction and management, assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence will be performed by two independent reviewers. A third researcher will be consulted in case of discrepancies. Depending on the availability and quality of the data as well as clinical and statistical heterogeneity, a meta-analysis will be performed. Otherwise, findings will be qualitatively reported.DiscussionThis will be the first systematic review to examine the efficacy of the Buzzy® device on pain management of children during needle-related procedures. Results of this review will guide clinical practice and recommendations for further research to improve procedural pediatric pain management.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017076531Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0738-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background This study’s objective was to examine emergency department (ED) workers’ perspectives during the Canadian COVID-19 first wave. Methods This qualitative study included workers from nine Canadian EDs who participated in 3 monthly video focus groups between April and July 2020 to explore (1) personal/professional experiences, (2) patient care and ED work, (3) relationships with teams, institutions and governing bodies. Framework analysis informed data collection and analysis. Results Thirty-six focus groups and 15 interviews were conducted with 53 participants (including 24 physicians, 16 nurses). Median age was 37.5 years, 51% were female, 79% had more than 5 years’ experience. Three main themes emerged. (1) Early in this pandemic, participants felt a responsibility to provide care to patients and solidarity toward their ED colleagues and team, while balancing many risks with their personal protection. (2) ED teams wanted to be engaged in decision-making, based on the best available scientific knowledge. Institutional decisions and clinical guidelines needed to be adapted to the specificity of each ED environment. (3) Working during the pandemic created new sources of moral distress and fatigue, including difficult clinical practices, distance with patients and families, frequent changes in information and added sources of fatigue. Although participants quickly adapted to a “new normal”, they were concerned about long-term burnout. Participants who experienced high numbers of patient deaths felt especially unprepared. Interpretation ED workers believe they have a responsibility to provide care through a pandemic. Trust in leadership is supported by managers who are present and responsive, transparent in their communication, and involve ED staff in the development and practice of policies and procedures. Such practices will help protect from burnout and ensure the workforce’s long-term sustainability. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43678-022-00306-z.

No abstract