Family Perceptions and Provision of Analgesia for Acutely Painful Conditions in Children: A Multi-Centred Prospective Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of children who present to the emergency department (ED) complain of pain. It is well known that children’s pain is poorly managed in the ED compared to their adult counterparts. With respect to analgesic administration in the ED, discrepancies exist between physician self-report and institutional audit. Patient refusal of analgesia is a likely explanation. There is good evidence that misconceptions and fears about analgesia in children are common among caregivers and may contribute to withholding pain medication. To date, no study has surveyed caregivers presenting the the ED to assess frequency of analgesic administration and reasons for withholding analgesia. We hypothesize that there will be a significant proportion of care-givers and patients that refuse pain medication in the ED. We also hypothesize that there will be a wide range of reasons for refusal. The insight we gain from this study will help nurses, clinical educators, and physicians provide the appropriate information to parents in an effort to target misconceptions and allay fears. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to characterize the degree of care-giver and patient provision of analgesia prior to arrival, refusal of analgesia in the ED, and reasons behind their decision-making process. We hope to identify specific misconceptions, attitudes, or beliefs that impair the optimal provision of analgesia to children in the ED. DESIGN/METHODS: A novel survey was designed by a focus group using an iterative approach and implemented over a 16-week period across two Canadian tertiary care paediatric EDs. We included a consecutive sample of caregivers of children aged 4-17 years with an acutely painful condition (headache, abdominal pain, injury, otitis, pharyngitis). Caregivers were asked to answer questions covering five domains: (i) demographics, (ii) analgesia prior to arrival (iii) analgesia offered in the ED and reasons for refusal, (iv) perceptions of analgesia, and (v) caregiver satisfaction at discharge. Children were asked to rate their pain on arrival and at discharge. The primary outcome was the frequency of caregiver provision of analgesia prior to arrival and the proportion of caregivers who accept the offer of analgesia offered in the ED. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-four caregivers completed the survey. The majority were female (269/339, 79%), aged 36 years or older (256/340, 75%) with a post-secondary education (237/336, 71%). Most (309/339, 91%) reported being able to “tell when their child was in pain”. All respondents rated their child’s maximal pain related to the presenting condition as at least a 6/10. With regards to the primary outcome, 229/338 (68%) of caregivers reported that they did not treat their child’s pain prior to arrival in the ED. Of those who did treat their child’s pain, ibuprofen was the most commonly used analgesic (77/112, 69%). The most common reasons for withholding analgesia was a lack of time (80/210, 38%), fear of masking seriousness of child’s condition (49/210, 23%), fear of masking signs and symptoms (48/210, 23%), and a lack of analgesia at home (47/210, 22%). Analgesia was offered to 186/344 (45%) of children in the ED and the majority of caregivers 157/186 (84%) accepted the offer. The most common reason for not accepting analgesia in the ED was child refusal (15/20, 75%). Most, 231/338 (68%) of caregivers felt that their child’s pain was managed well in the ED. CONCLUSION: This survey of caregiver perceptions surrounding analgesia for children with acutely painful conditions presenting to the pae-diatric ED suggests that most do not treat their child’s pain prior to arrival, despite high levels of pain. Misconceptions surrounding analgesia prior to arrival are common. Despite this, most caregivers accepted analgesia in the ED. Our results suggest that educational strategies should be directed at caregiver awareness of the impact of pain on children and the need for prompt analgesic therapy, even when an ED visit is planned.
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 | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».