The Reality of Pain Scoring in the Emergency Department: Findings From a Multiple Case Study Design - 19/09/19
Abstract |
Study objective |
Documentation of pain severity with pain scores is recommended within emergency departments (EDs) to improve consistency of assessment and management of pain. Pain scores are used in treatment guidelines and triage algorithms to determine pain management and in audit and research to evaluate pain management practices. Despite significant debate of their benefits, there has been limited evaluation of their use in practice. We use naturalistic, qualitative methods to understand how pain scores are used in practice and the mechanisms by which pain scoring may influence pain management.
Methods |
We undertook a multiple case study design, using qualitative research in 3 EDs in England (the cases). Case studies incorporated 143 hours of nonparticipant observation, documentary analysis, and semistructured interviews with 36 staff and 19 patients. Data were analyzed with thematic analysis.
Results |
Analysis identified that ED staff used the pain score for 2 conflicting purposes: as an auditable tool for guiding patient management and as a tool for monitoring patient experience. This led to ED staff’s facing conflict between reporting their own judgment of what the pain score ought to be and what the patient said it was. Staff justified recording their own judgment according to concerns of accountability and appropriateness of management decisions. Staff thought that pain scoring had value in raising awareness and prompting action.
Conclusion |
In practice, pain scoring may not accurately reflect patient experience. Using pain scoring to determine the appropriateness of triage and treatment decisions reduces its validity as a measure of patient experience. Pain scoring should not be central to audit and systems of accountability for pain management.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 539 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Donald M. Yealy, MD. Specific detailed information about possible conflict of interest for individual editors is available at editors. |
|
Author contributions: All authors conceived the study and analyzed the data. FCS obtained research funding through a doctoral fellowship, drafted the article, and undertook site and participant recruitment, data collection and management, and data analysis. SWG and AOC supervised the doctoral fellow, provided advice on study design and management, and contributed to article revision. FCS drafted the article. FCS takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). Drs. Sampson and O'Cathain have stated that no such relationships exist. Dr. Goodacre is the associate editor for Annals of Emergency Medicine, Deputy Director of the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and Chair of the UK HTA Commissioning Board. Dr. Sampson was funded by a UK NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship grant (DRF 2011-04-124). |
|
This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. |
|
Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide XX7R8KK to Annals on this particular article. |
Vol 74 - N° 4
P. 538-548 - octobre 2019 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?