191: Pediatric Pain Management: the Emergency Medicine Residents' Perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pain is a component of up to 80% of all emergency department (ED) visits. Oligoanalgesia, the under-treatment of pain, is a recognized problem in the ED and can have numerous detrimental effects for the pediatric patient. Surveying emergency medicine residents, our primary objectives were to describe a) the extent and type of training received in pediatric acute pain management, b) their management approach to common painful pediatric presentations, c) their level of comfort in assessing and treating acute pain, d) their perceived facilitators and barriers to optimally managing pain, and e) their attitudes towards managing such pain in the ED. A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was administered to all Royal College Emergency Medicine (EM) and Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) residents, the Canadian College of Family Physician's EM residents, Clinical Fellows and PEM Fellows at three Canadian universities. A novel survey tool was created and distributed from May to June 2013. Surveys were completed online, using a modified Dillman approach. Our response rate was 46% (56 of 122). Forty-five percent (25 of 55) of residents had not received any training for pediatric pain assessment. All years of residents were uncomfortable with the assessment of pain in 0- to 2-year-olds (P=0.07). For patients aged two to 12 years, level of comfort with pain assessment increased with years of training (P=0.02). When assessing pain in children with disabilities, 83% (45 of 54) of residents were ‘extremely’ or ‘somewhat’ uncomfortable; 65% (47 of 55) of residents had not received any training on how to assess pain for such patients. Sixty-nine percent (38 of 55) of residents had received training on how to treat pediatric pain. All residents were more comfortable using pain medication for a nine-year-old, as compared to a one-year-old (oral oxycodone P=0.00003, oral morphine P=0.00002, IV morphine P=0.004). Ninety-eight percent (54 of 55) of residents felt that it was ‘extremely’ or ‘somewhat’ important to receive education about pediatric pain management. Their preferred methods to learn children's pain management were through role modeling (61%) and lectures (57%). Top challenges to optimal pediatric pain management were non-verbal patients, patients with disabilities, and young infants. Pediatric pain management education is important to EM residents. Residents recall receiving sub-optimal training on this important topic. They are especially uneasy in the management of younger children and those with disabilities. This study's findings can be used to inform post-graduate curriculum planning, in order to optimize pediatric pain assessment and treatment education.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».