Lord Bill A, Parsell Brian
Monash University Centre for Ambulance and Paramedic Studies, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003 Oct-Dec;18(4):353-8. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x0000131x.
The aim of this study was to use a visual analogue scale (VAS) to measure the adequacy of prehospital pain management. Patients reported pain severity at two points in time during treatment and transport by ambulance paramedics. The change in pain score was compared with a benchmark reduction of 20 mm that has been shown to correspond with the minimum clinically significant change in pain perception reported by patients.
This prospective, observational study used a VAS to record pain severity among patients reporting pain who were transported to a hospital by paramedics. Patients used a VAS to score pain severity during the initial patient assessment process (T0), and again at the hospital of destination (Tend). This study reports the mean changes in the scores, and the percentage of cases for whom the difference between T0 and Tend in the study population achieved or exceeded the 20 mm benchmark. A survey also was administered to paramedics who participated in this study in order to identify attitudes, values, and beliefs relating to the measurement of pain.
A total of 262 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean value for the reduction in VAS (T0-Tend) was 18.2+/-23.9 mm [+/-SD] (Median = 14.0mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 15.3-21.1 mm). One hundred and thirty-four patients (51.1%) did not receive analgesia (either morphine sulfate or methoxyflurane). The mean initial (T0) pain score for the no-analgesia group was 54.5+/-24.7 mm [+/-SD], with the mean value for the change in VAS (T0-Tend) = 10.6 mm (median = 5 mm, 95% CI = 6.4-14.8 mm). Forty-six patients (17.6%) recorded some deterioration in their pain score at Tend (T0-Tend<0 mm). Survey results identified attitudes that may affect paramedics' pain management practice.
The results suggest that inadequate analgesia is an issue in this study setting. Effective analgesia requires formal protocols or guidelines supported by effective analgesic therapies along with education that addresses attitudes that may inhibit pain assessment or management by paramedics. Regular audits form part of clinical quality assurance programs that assess analgesic practice. However, such audits must have access to data obtained from patient self-reporting of pain using a valid and reliable pain measurement tool.
本研究的目的是使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)来衡量院前疼痛管理的充分性。患者在接受治疗以及由救护人员转运期间的两个时间点报告疼痛严重程度。将疼痛评分的变化与20毫米的基准降幅进行比较,该降幅已被证明与患者报告的疼痛感知中临床上最小的显著变化相对应。
这项前瞻性观察性研究使用VAS记录由救护人员转运至医院且报告疼痛的患者的疼痛严重程度。患者在初始患者评估过程中(T0)使用VAS对疼痛严重程度进行评分,并在目的地医院再次评分(Tend)。本研究报告了评分的平均变化,以及研究人群中T0和Tend之间的差异达到或超过20毫米基准的病例百分比。还对参与本研究的救护人员进行了一项调查,以确定与疼痛测量相关的态度、价值观和信念。
本研究共纳入262例患者。VAS降幅(T0 - Tend)的平均值为18.2±23.9毫米[±标准差](中位数 = 14.0毫米,95%置信区间(CI) = 15.3 - 21.1毫米)。134例患者(51.1%)未接受镇痛治疗(硫酸吗啡或甲氧氟烷)。未接受镇痛治疗组的初始(T0)平均疼痛评分为54.5±24.7毫米[±标准差],VAS变化平均值(T0 - Tend) = 10.6毫米(中位数 = 5毫米,95%CI = 6.4 - 14.8毫米)。46例患者(17.6%)在Tend时疼痛评分有所恶化(T0 - Tend < 0毫米)。调查结果确定了可能影响救护人员疼痛管理实践的态度。
结果表明,在本研究环境中镇痛不足是一个问题。有效的镇痛需要有效的镇痛疗法支持的正式方案或指南,以及针对可能抑制救护人员疼痛评估或管理的态度的教育。定期审核是评估镇痛实践的临床质量保证计划的一部分。然而,此类审核必须能够获取使用有效且可靠的疼痛测量工具从患者自我报告疼痛中获得的数据。