Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy, Kingston, RI, USA.
Kent Hospital, Warwick, Rhode Island, USA.
Postgrad Med. 2020 Jan;132(1):37-43. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2019.1672374. Epub 2019 Oct 8.
: Our institution implemented six multimodal, sliding scale protocols for managing pain in non-surgical inpatients. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of these acute pain protocols with traditional prescribing in regard to pain management efficacy and safety measures.: This retrospective cohort study evaluated hospital in-patients who were prescribed one of the protocols during the first 6 months following implementation, admitted to the hospitalist service, and had received at least two doses of PRN analgesic medication within a 24-hour period. Data collected included baseline demographics, verbal pain rating scores to determine time to achieve analgesia, total opioid use in oral morphine equivalent doses (MEDs), and safety measures. A sample of patients admitted during the same time frame, meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria, but who received traditional analgesic prescribing served as controls.: Forty-six adult, non-surgical patients were included in the analysis, and 46 served as controls. The average baseline pain scores were similar between groups (7.26 in protocol, 7.43 in control, p = 0.684). Protocol patients required significantly less time to achieve meaningful analgesia (average 507.52 min) compared to the control group (894.33 min, p = 0.045). Patients in the protocol group used an average of 35.81 MEDs per day compared to 65.77 MEDs in controls (p = 0.019). Patients in the protocol group used significantly fewer PRN analgesic doses (12.70 vs. 24.02, p < 0.0001).: Analysis of the implementation of acute pain management protocols indicates that using standardized pain management protocols of opioids, non-opioids, and medications to prevent opioid-related adverse events is more effective than traditional analgesic prescribing for our patient population.
我们机构实施了六种多模式、滑动比例方案来管理非手术住院患者的疼痛。本研究的目的是比较这些急性疼痛方案与传统处方在疼痛管理疗效和安全措施方面的应用。
这项回顾性队列研究评估了在实施后 6 个月内被规定使用其中一种方案的住院患者,他们被收治到住院医师服务中,并在 24 小时内至少接受了两次 PRN 镇痛药物治疗。收集的数据包括基线人口统计学资料、口头疼痛评分以确定达到镇痛的时间、口服吗啡等效剂量 (MED) 的总阿片类药物使用量以及安全措施。在同一时间段内,符合纳入/排除标准但接受传统镇痛处方的患者作为对照组纳入研究。
46 名成年非手术患者被纳入分析,46 名患者作为对照组。两组患者的基线疼痛评分相似(方案组为 7.26,对照组为 7.43,p = 0.684)。与对照组(894.33 分钟,p = 0.045)相比,方案组患者达到有意义镇痛所需的时间明显更短(平均 507.52 分钟)。方案组患者平均每天使用的 MEDs 为 35.81,而对照组为 65.77(p = 0.019)。方案组患者使用 PRN 镇痛药物的次数明显较少(12.70 次比 24.02 次,p < 0.0001)。
急性疼痛管理方案的实施分析表明,对于我们的患者群体,使用标准化的阿片类药物、非阿片类药物和药物管理疼痛管理方案,以及预防阿片类药物相关不良事件的方案,比传统的镇痛处方更有效。