Inhaled methoxyflurane for the management of trauma related pain in patients admitted to hospital emergency departments : a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (PenASAP study)

Pain intensity is frequently measured on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain. However, it is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of changes from baseline on this scale (such as a 1- or 2-point change). To date, there are no data driven estimates for clinically important differences in pain intensity scales used for chronic pain studies. We have estimated a clinically important difference on this scale by relating it to global assessments of change in multiple studies of chronic pain. Data on 2724 subjects from 10 recently completed placebo-controlled clinical trials of pregabalin in diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were used. The studies had similar designs and measurement instruments, including the PI-NRS, collected in a daily diary, and the standard seven-point patient global impression of change (PGIC), collected at the endpoint. The changes in the PI-NRS from baseline to the endpoint were compared to the PGIC for each subject. Categories of "much improved" and "very much improved" were used as determinants of a clinically important difference and the relationship to the PI-NRS was explored using graphs, box plots, and sensitivity/specificity analyses. A consistent relationship between the change in PI-NRS and the PGIC was demonstrated regardless of study, disease type, age, sex, study result, or treatment group. On average, a reduction of approximately two points or a reduction of approximately 30% in the PI-NRS represented a clinically important difference. The relationship between percent change and the PGIC was also consistent regardless of baseline pain, while higher baseline scores required larger raw changes to represent a clinically important difference. The application of these results to future studies may provide a standard definition of clinically important improvement in clinical trials of chronic pain therapies. Use of a standard outcome across chronic pain studies would greatly enhance the comparability, validity, and clinical applicability of these studies.

We study the impact of emergency department (ED) crowding on delays in treatment and nontreatment for patients with severe pain. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients presenting with severe pain to an inner-city, teaching ED during 17 months. Poor care was defined by 3 outcomes: not receiving treatment with pain medication while in the ED, a delay (>1 hour) from triage to first pain medication, and a delay (>1 hour) from room placement to first pain medication. Three validated crowding measures were assigned to each patient at triage. Logistic regression was used to test the association between crowding and outcomes. In 13,758 patients with severe pain, the mean age was 39 years (SD 16 years), 73% were black, and 64% were female patients. Half (49%) of the patients received pain medication. Of those treated, 3,965 (59%) experienced delays in treatment from triage and 1,319 (20%) experienced delays from time of room placement. After controlling for factors associated with the ED treatment of pain (race, sex, severity, and older age), nontreatment was independently associated with waiting room number (odds ratio [OR] 1.03 for each additional waiting patient; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.03) and occupancy rate (OR 1.01 for each 10% increase in occupancy; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.04). Increasing waiting room number and occupancy rate also independently predicted delays in pain medication from triage (OR 1.05 for each waiting patient, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.06; OR 1.18 for each 10% increase in occupancy; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.21) and delay in pain medication from room placement (OR 1.02 for each waiting patient, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03; OR 1.06 for each 10% increase in occupancy, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.08). ED crowding is associated with poor quality of care in patients with severe pain, with respect to total lack of treatment and delay until treatment.

Pain is the most common reason for emergency department (ED) use, and oligoanalgesia in this setting is known to be common. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has revised standards for pain management; however, the impact of these regulatory changes on ED pain management practice is unknown. This prospective, multicenter study assessed the current state of ED pain management practice. After informed consent, patients aged 8 years and older with presenting pain intensity scores of 4 or greater on an 11-point numerical rating scale completed structured interviews, and their medical records were abstracted. Eight hundred forty-two patients at 20 US and Canadian hospitals participated. On arrival, pain intensity was severe (median, 8/10). Pain assessments were noted in 83% of cases; however, reassessments were uncommon. Only 60% of patients received analgesics that were administered after lengthy delays (median, 90 minutes; range, 0 to 962 minutes), and 74% of patients were discharged in moderate to severe pain. Of patients not receiving analgesics, 42% desired them; however, only 31% of these patients voiced such requests. We conclude that ED pain intensity is high, analgesics are underutilized, and delays to treatment are common. Despite efforts to improve pain management practice, oligoanalgesia remains a problem for emergency medicine. Despite the frequency of pain in the emergency department, few studies have examined this phenomenon. This study documents high pain intensity and suboptimal pain management practices in a large multicenter ED network in the United States and Canada. These findings suggest that there is much room for improvement in this area.