Prehospital pain management: do we have to learn more about it?

Madeira, Fabiana Mendes; Ferreira, Paulo Roberto Abrão; Lapa, Teresa; Tavares, Erika Okuda

doi:10.1097/00003643-201306001-00633

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A documented pain score assessment rate of 65% of the entire patient population is at the high end of the range when compared to documented pain assessment rates in prehospital settings in other countries. 18,[23][24][25]29,30,36,37 In more than half of the cases with a pain score, the practitioner was documenting that the patient was not in pain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to inform the choice of variables for inclusion in our study, a literature review was performed. This review indicated that common variables showing an association with pain assessment completion and/or severity of pain include age of patient, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] sex of patient, [25][26][27][28][29] diagnosis of the patient, 20,30,31 time of day of call, 20,21 transport duration, 20,21 scene time, 21 and measures of cognitive functioning such as GCS score. 16,32…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) min, OR1.15[95%CI1.09-1.21]; 31-60 min, OR1.43[95%CI1.35-1.51]; 61+mins, OR1.75[95% CI1.59-1.92]), while calls with a longer on-scene duration showed an increase in patients in severe pain only (0-10 min, 14.7%; 11-30 min, 16.8%; 31-60 min, 21.9%; 61 +min 29.3%).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors associated with pain reporting and severity of pain in the prehospital setting

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An effective pain management strategy requires understanding of the epidemiology of pain in the population of interest and accurate measurement upon which to base quality improvement plans. The aims of this study were to estimate the incidence of pain in the prehospital setting and to explore features that impact on (1) documentation of pain; (2) severity of pain reported by patients. This retrospective cohort study included 212,401 care episodes attended by National Ambulance Service practitioners during 2020. Descriptive analysis of patient and care episode characteristics and regression analyses for the outcomes pain recorded and severity of pain were performed. We also used text pattern-matching of the notes field to estimate the proportion of patients in pain for whom a pain score assessment had not been documented. Sixty-five percent of all patients had a pain score documented and 29.5% were in pain (11% in severe pain). Likelihood of pain being recorded was most strongly associated with: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) Score, working diagnosis of the patient, location of the incident, and patient age. Likelihood of pain severity was most strongly associated with: transport status of patient, GCS score, and patient age. We treated missing data as a separate category and found consistent associations between the outcomes and missing data. We also found that pain was a symptom in approximately 15% of cases where no formal pain score assessment was documented. The data showed associations between routinely collected variables and the likelihood of pain recording and pain severity. Our findings also demonstrate the impact of missing data. To mitigate missing data impact, we suggest that EMS agencies consider making pain score assessment a mandatory requirement of their reporting for every patient. We also recommend that services report the extent and impact of missing data when measuring clinical performance.

show abstract