AN AUDIT OF THE MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE PAIN IN CHILDREN

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (9) ◽  
pp. e2.3-e2
Author(s):  
Junndeep Sidhu ◽  
Neil Tickner

AimTo evaluate clinical management of acute pain with respect to pain assessment, scoring and timing of analgesia and whether appropriate supportive medicines were prescribed alongside strong opiates. A previous pain audit found dosing of analgesia was appropriate but did not assess clinical management against pain scores. Our paediatric guideline does not currently stipulate guidance on appropriate time frames to administer analgesia and re-assess pain. Standards were developed with a multidisciplinary team to audit against.MethodsData were collected over two weeks on paediatric wards excluding intensive care and day surgery. Inclusion criteria: Pain score of ≥1 during admission, or clear documentation of pain prior to ward admission, and analgesia prescribed for the indication of pain relief. Pain assessment was audited based on recorded pain scores on observation charts. Analgesia prescribed and administered was audited from drug charts. Audit standards:(1) Following a pain score of ≥1 (out of 3), subsequent dosing and assessment of pain scores must be achieved in 80% of patients as follows:(a) Severe/worst pain (score 3): Should receive appropriate analgesia within 20 minutes of assessment and pain re-evaluated within 5-minute intervals for intravenous and intranasal route or within 30 minutes of receiving oral analgesia.(b) Mild/moderate pain (score 1–2): Should receive appropriate analgesia within 30 minutes of assessment and pain re-evaluated within 60 minutes of receiving analgesia.(2) 80% of patients prescribed regular analgesia should have their pain score assessed at least 4-hourly.(3) 90% of patients prescribed strong opioid analgesia should be co-prescribed naloxone prn for respiratory depression and pruritus/urinary retention.ResultsTwenty-five patients were audited. In total there were 59 severe pain scores and 92 mild/moderate. Observation charts allowed for documentation of pain scores at 15-minute intervals but only hourly recordings were observed throughout the audit period. 58% (34/59) and 30% (28/92) of pain scores indicating severe or mild/moderate pain respectively received analgesia in the same hour the pain score was recorded. In total there were 71 analgesia administrations for severe pain and 92 for mild/moderate pain. 52% (37/71) and 34% (31/92) of analgesia administrations after severe or mild/moderate pain scores respectively had a pain score re-assessed within 60 minutes.Eighteen patients were prescribed regular analgesia of whom 15 (83%) had pain assessed a minimum of every 4 hrs. Eleven patients were prescribed strong opioid analgesia, 45% of whom were not prescribed any naloxone, 27% had naloxone fully prescribed (pruritus and respiratory depression), and 27% had naloxone prescribed for respiratory depression alone.ConclusionDespite lack of guidance around timing of pain assessment and administration of drugs, pain scores were being recorded regularly and acted upon, although not within a structured time frame. Observation charts allowed for assessment of pain scores at 15-minute intervals but only ‘on the hour’ documentation were observed. Specific guidance around timing of analgesia administration and assessment will be introduced to the revised guideline with medical and nurse training sessions to standardise practice and improve management of pain, in addition to safe prescribing of opiates.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19636-e19636
Author(s):  
Maricarmen Alfaro ◽  
Raquel Baldeos ◽  
Beatriz Rosales ◽  
Maria Berenguel ◽  
Alfredo Aguilar

e19636 Background: Assessing pain in nonverbal, especially agonic cancer patients is a great challenge. In the absence of self-report, measurement of pain could be difficult and patient`s behavior could be useful. The aim of this work was to evaluate the Pain Assessment Behavioral Scale (PABS) in cancer agonic patients. Methods: PABS scale was used to evaluate 118 cancer patients enter in agony. Pain levels was categorized according to PABS score in Mild Pain (score 1-3), Moderate Pain (score 4-5), Severe Pain (score>6). We correlated levels of pain with age, sex, cancer metastatic site or active tumor localization with the ANOVA, Chi square or Fisher tests when were appropriated. A P<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Fifty two patients (44.1%) were male and 66 female (55.9%). The median age was 74 (Standar Deviation [SD]:13.1; Range: 30-94). Most frequent primary tumors were colorectal (16%), lung (11%), Pancreas (9.3%), Breast (8.5%), lymphomas (6.8%), prostate (6.8%) and gastric (5.6%) cancer. Involvement of primary active tumor or active metastases was present in lung (22%), Central Nervous System (CNS) (13.6%), liver (22%), and bone (7.6%). The median of PABS score was 5 (SD=1.25; range: 2 – 8). Seven cases had mild pain (5.9%), 105 moderate pain (89%) and 6 severe pain (5.1%). There was no correlation of pain levels with age (P=0.420), sex (P=0.098), active tumor or metastatic involvement of lung (P=0.321), CNS (P=0.972), Liver (P=0.575) or bone (P=0.529). Conclusions: In our experience, PABS scale is a useful tool to evaluate pain in agony cancer patients. We found no correlation between active tumor or metastatic localization with the intensity of pain.


2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552095678
Author(s):  
Alicja Timm ◽  
Stefan Knecht ◽  
Matthias Florian ◽  
Heidrun Pickenbrock ◽  
Bettina Studer ◽  
...  

Objective: This prospective study investigated the extent to which patients undergoing neurorehabilitation reported pain, how this pain developed during inpatient stay and whether patients were treated accordingly (using pain medication). Methods: The extent of pain, performance in daily activities, with a focus on possible impairment from pain, and pain medication were assessed at the beginning and the end of neurorehabilitation treatment. Overall 584 patients, with various neurological diagnoses, such as stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, polyneuropathy, etc. were classified into four groups based on whether they reported having “no pain,” “mild pain,” “moderate pain,” or “severe pain.” All patients received conventional neurorehabilitation therapy in the Mauritius Hospital, Germany. Results: A total of 149 patients had clinically relevant pain at the beginning of their inpatient stay, at a group level this did not change significantly during the treatment period. At the end of inpatient stay, a slight increase was noted in patients reporting pain. Overall 164 patients suffered from moderate or severe pain, operationalized of pain scores >3 on the visual analog scale. A total of 145 patients who had pain at the end of inpatient stay, did not receive pain medication. There was a weak negative association between pain at baseline and activities of daily living at the end of the treatment period, such that, patients with higher pain levels tended to showed lower Barthel Index scores at the end. Conclusion: In our study, about one-third of patients suffered from clinically relevant pain during neurorehabilitation treatment and most of them did not receive any pain medication.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4693-4693
Author(s):  
Marquita Nelson ◽  
Monica Peek ◽  
Kenneth Cohen ◽  
Danielle Bowsman ◽  
Nabil Abou-Baker

Introduction Acute vaso-occlusive pain crises are the most common complications of sickle cell disease (SCD). Pain is a subjective sensation and is often difficult to describe and for practitioners to understand. The complexity and multidimensional nature of pain requires additional evaluation beyond pain intensity. Pain assessment is also influenced by implicit and explicit biases related to race and ethnicity which can negatively influence treatment (Wandner et al J Pain 2012). In this pilot quality improvement study, we studied resident perceptions to a functional assessment tool in adult patients hospitalized with sickle cell vaso-occlusive crises. We used the Youth Acute Pain Functional Ability Questionnaire (YAPFAQ), a validated questionnaire of physical function in youth experiencing acute pain (Zempsky et al J Pain 2014) (Figure 1). Resident responses to using the YAPFAQ were measured as an initial step to implementation of functional pain assessment in hospitalized adults with SCD pain crises. Methods We piloted this study on internal medicine residents. First, residents completed the Resident Acute SCD Pain Assessment Survey regarding their current management of acute pain in SCD (Figure 2). This was done to determine their baseline demographic information, methods of pain assessment, satisfaction with the numerical pain score system, and to understand barriers in assessing acute pain. This survey included a combination of multiple choice, free response, and binary response options. The residents then trialed the YAPFAQ with a patient admitted with vaso-occlusive pain crisis then the residents completed The Post YAPFAQ Evaluation Survey in response to this assessment tool (Figure 3). This survey included a combination of multiple choice, free response, and binary response options. The goal of this survey was to assess resident satisfaction with YAPFAQ, perceived patient receptiveness to YAPFAQ, and feasibility of using this tool during daily assessments. Patients were not surveyed during this pilot study. We performed descriptive statistics to describe the survey results. Results Sixteen residents completed the Acute SCD Pain Management survey prior to using the YAPFAQ. Sixty-nine percent of residents reported dissatisfaction with using numerical pain scores. Reported barriers to assessing pain included: subjectivity of pain scores, concern for malingering, and the ceiling effect of the numeric scale. Seven residents completed the post YAPFAQ evaluation survey. A majority of residents (86%) were extremely satisfied or satisfied with using the YAPFAQ. Fifty seven percent of residents felt that patients were extremely receptive or receptive to using this tool. The majority of residents (85%) felt that the YAPFAQ improved their understanding of patients' pain. All YAPFAQs were completed with patients in 10 minutes or less. Most residents (57%) reported that the tool would be feasible for implementation on rounds. Conclusions Similar to previous studies, our residents felt that numerical pain score systems inadequately describe pain. Residents had generally positive responses to the YAPFAQ. One resident stated that the questionnaire was "structured and easy to compare day to day." Functional pain assessment allows providers to better understand how pain limits daily activities and can provide useful functional targets for safe hospital discharge. Future directions of this project include performing a larger study of patients hospitalized with vaso-occlusive pain crises to validate the YAPFAQ in adult patients, survey patients regarding experiences with the YAPFAQ, and to create tailored pain management plans based on functional pain assessments. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1095-1099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Barbera ◽  
Hsien Seow ◽  
Amna Husain ◽  
Doris Howell ◽  
Clare Atzema ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to measure opioid prescription (OP) rates in elderly cancer outpatients around the time of assessment for pain and to evaluate factors associated with receiving OPs for those with severe pain. Patients and Methods The cross-sectional cohort includes all patients with cancer in Ontario older than age 65 years who completed a pain assessment as part of a provincial initiative of systematic symptom screening. Patients were assigned to mutually exclusive categories by pain score severity: 0, 1 to 3 (mild), 4 to 6 (moderate), and 7 to 10 (severe). We linked multiple provincial health databases to examine the proportion of patients with an OP within 7 days after or 30 days before the assessment date. We examined factors associated with OPs for patients with pain scores of 7 to 10. Results The proportion of patients with an OP increased as pain score severity increased: 10% of those with no pain, 24% of those with mild pain, 45% of those with moderate pain, and 67% of those with severe pain. More specifically, for those with severe pain, 41% filled an OP within 7 days of assessment for pain, and 26% had an OP from the 30 days before assessment for pain, leaving 33% without an OP. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with OPs are younger age, male sex, comorbid illness, cancer type, and assessment at home. Conclusion Despite a generous time window for capturing OPs, the proportion of patients without an OP seems high. Further knowledge translation is required to maximize the impact of the symptom screening initiative in Ontario and to optimize management of cancer-related pain.


2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802096203
Author(s):  
Kenneth K. Tran ◽  
Madeline A. VanDaele ◽  
Sylvia Tran ◽  
Shelley A. Stevens ◽  
Nicole Maltese Dietrich ◽  
...  

Background: Drug product shortages, including injectable opioids, are common and have the potential to adversely affect patient care. Objective: To evaluate the impact of an injectable opioid shortage for hospitalized adult patients in the acute postoperative setting. Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study of noncritically ill hospitalized, postoperative patients requiring opioids for acute pain management was conducted. Patient cohorts were compared preshortage and postshortage for proportion of total intravenous (IV) opioids used, proportions of specific pain medications used, subjective pain scores, 30-day mortality, respiratory depression, need for opioid reversal, hospital length of stay, and opioid equivalent doses. Results: A total of 275 patients were included, 130 patients in the preshortage cohort and 145 in the postshortage cohort. The proportion of total IV opioid doses was lower in the postshortage cohort versus the preshortage cohort (16.6% vs 20.5%; P < 0.01). Specific medications used were significantly different between the cohorts. The proportion of severe pain scores was lower in the postshortage cohort versus the preshortage cohort (55.6% vs 58.5%; P = 0.04). No significant differences were seen in the overall proportion of nonopioid analgesic use, 30-day mortality, respiratory depression, need for emergent opioid reversal, hospital length of stay, or opioid equivalent doses between cohorts. Conclusion and Relevance: In hospitalized, postoperative adults, an injectable opioid shortage was associated with significant decreases in IV opioid use and severe pain scores but no significant differences in nonopioid analgesic use, safety outcomes, or opioid equivalent doses. These results may assist clinicians in developing strategies for injectable opioid shortages and generating hypotheses for future studies.


CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S18-S19
Author(s):  
E. Jun ◽  
S. Ali ◽  
M. Yaskina ◽  
K. Dong ◽  
M. Rajagopal ◽  
...  

Introduction: Given the current opioid crisis, caregivers have mounting fears regarding use of opioid medication in their children. Since caregivers are often the gatekeepers to their children's pain management, understanding their perspectives on analgesics is essential. For caregivers of children with acute injury presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED), we aimed to determine caregivers’: a) willingness to accept opioids from emergency care providers, b) reasons for refusing opioids, and c) past experiences with opioids. Methods: A novel 31-item electronic survey was offered, via tablet device, to caregivers of children aged 4-16 years who had a musculoskeletal injury &lt;7 days old and presented to one of two Canadian PEDs between March and November 2017. Primary outcome was caregiver willingness to accept opioids for moderate pain for their children. Results: 517 caregivers completed the survey; mean age was 40.9 +/−7 years with 70.0% (362/517) being mothers. Children included 62.2% (321/516) males with an overall mean age of 10 +/−3.6 years. 49.6% of caregivers (254/512) reported willingness to accept opioids for moderate pain that persisted after non-opioid analgesia, while 37.1% (190/512) were unsure what they would do. Only 33.2% (170/512) of caregivers stated they would accept opioid analgesia upon discharge while 45.5% (233/512) were unsure about at-home use. Caregivers were primarily concerned about side effects, overdose, addiction, and masking of diagnosis. Caregiver fear of addiction (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25) and side effects (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11-1.42) increased the odds of rejecting opioids in the emergency department, while fears of addiction (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32) and overdose (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.27) increased the odds of rejecting opioids for at-home use. Conclusion: Only half of caregivers reported that they would accept opioids for moderate pain, despite ongoing pain following non-opioid analgesics. Caregiver fears of addiction, side effects, overdose, and masking their child's diagnosis influence their behaviours. These findings are a first step in understanding caregiver decision-making and can guide healthcare providers in their conversations about acute pain treatment with families.


Author(s):  
M. A. Sheelamma ◽  
C. C. Linson

The goal of this study was to determine the intensity of pain experienced by primiparturient women during the first stage of labour. To see how beneficial a warm compress is on the lumbar area. To see if there's a link between labour discomfort and certain demographic factors. At the 0.05 level of significance, the post-test pain score will be lower than the pre-test pain score. The research method chosen was quantitative, and the study design was pre-experimental, pre-test, and post-test. Purposive sampling was used to collect data from 60 primiparturient moms in the early stages of labour. The research was carried out at Amravati's Dayasagar Hospital. A pre-test was done using a numerical pain scale to determine pain levels among primiparturient moms who met the inclusion criteria. In the initial stage of labour, a warm compress on the lumbar area is applied for 15 minutes every half hour for four hours. The numerical pain scale is used to measure post-test pain levels. In the current study, 53.3 percent of primigravida moms in the control group reported moderate pain (scoring 4-6) and 46.6 percent had severe pain in post-test 1. (score 7-10). 36.6 percent had moderate pain (scoring 4-6) and 63.3 percent had severe pain (7-10) in post-test 2, while 13.3 percent had moderate pain (4-6) and 86.6 percent had severe pain in post-test 3. (score 7-10). In post-test 1, 70% of the experimental group experienced moderate pain (scoring 4-6) and 30% had severe pain (score 7-10). In post-test 2, 66.6 percent of participants reported moderate pain, while 33.3 percent reported severe pain. In post-test 3, 56.6 percent of participants reported moderate pain, while 43.3 percent reported severe pain. As a result, it may be stated that using a warm compress to relieve pain was successful.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Megan E. Phillips ◽  
Rod A. Gilmore ◽  
Melody C. Sheffield ◽  
Stephanie V. Phan

Purpose: To compare pain assessment documentation postopioid administration in hospitalized patients before and after implementing nurse education. Methods: Patients 18 years and older were randomly selected for inclusion if they received 1 opioid dose while admitted to the hospital. Through retrospective chart review, opioid data, including date and time, were collected for each opioid administered. Pain score data, including time and date of documentation, were recorded for analysis. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether a nursing education intervention would improve documentation of pain scores within an appropriate time frame postadministration of an opioid medication. The intervention was a training presentation uploaded to the institution’s intranet with an assessment. The primary outcome was measured by comparing the frequency by which nurses documented pain scores following opioid administration before and after education. Results: Three hundred twenty patients (160 patients per time period) were evaluated. The percentage of pain scores recorded within the appropriate assessment time following opioid administration increased from 32.9% to 37.8% ( P = .003). The proportion of appropriate pain score documentation increased 4.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6%-8.2%). Conclusion: An increase in the documentation of efficacy assessments after opioid administration was demonstrated after nursing education. Further studies should be done to identify additional strategies to increase monitoring as well as to identify a benchmark for institutions with regard to pain management monitoring.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gian Luigi Marseglia ◽  
Maria Alessio ◽  
Liviana Da Dalt ◽  
Maria Giuliano ◽  
Angelo Ravelli ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend assessing and relieving pain in all children and in all instances; yet, in clinical practice, management is frequently suboptimal. We investigated the attitude of Italian family pediatricians towards the evaluation and treatment of different types of acute pain in children aged 7–12 years. Methods This is a cross-sectional study based on a 17-question survey accessible online from October 2017 to October 2018. Responders had to describe cases of children suffering from any type of acute pain among headache, sore throat, musculoskeletal/post-traumatic pain, and earache. Children’s characteristics, pain assessment modalities and therapeutic approaches were queried. The following tests were used: Z-proportion to evaluate the distribution of categorical data; chi-squared and Kruskall-Wallis to explore data heterogeneity across groups; Mann-Whitney for head-to-head comparisons. Results Overall, 929 pediatricians presented 6335 cases uniformly distributed across the types examined. Pain was more frequently of moderate intensity (42.2%, P < 0.001) and short duration (within some days: 98.4%, P < 0.001). Only 50.1% of responders used an algometric scale to measure pain and 60.5% always prescribed a treatment. In children with mild-moderate pain (N = 4438), the most commonly used first-line non-opioids were ibuprofen (53.3%) and acetaminophen (44.4%). Importantly, a non-recommended dosage was prescribed in only 5.3% of acetaminophen-treated cases (overdosing). Among the misconceptions emerged, there were the following: i) ibuprofen and acetaminophen have different efficacy and safety profiles (when choosing the non-opioid, effectiveness weighted more for ibuprofen [79.7% vs 74.3%, P < 0.001] and tolerability for acetaminophen [74.0% vs 55.4%, P < 0.001]); ii) ibuprofen must be taken after meals to prevent gastric toxicities (52.5%); ibuprofen and acetaminophen can be used combined/alternated for persisting mild-moderate pain (16.1%). In case of moderate-severe pain not completely controlled by opioids, ibuprofen and acetaminophen were the most used add-on medications, with ibuprofen being much more prescribed than acetaminophen (65.2% vs 23.7%, respectively) overall and in all pain types. Conclusions Several gaps exist between the current practice of pain assessment and treatment and recommendations. Further efforts are needed to raise awareness and improve education on the possible exposure of the child to short- and long-term consequences in case of suboptimal pain management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document