MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071804182 · doi:10.1097/pec.0b013e3181b0a0af

Pain Management Practices in a Pediatric Emergency Room (PAMPER) Study

2009· article· en· W2071804182 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Le May, Céleste Johnston, Manon Choinière, Christophe Fortin, Denise Kudirka, Louise Murray, Dominic Chalut

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteMontreal Children's HospitalUniversité du Québec à MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePain managementPsychological interventionEmergency departmentIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyAcute painAbdominal painEmergency medicineAnesthesiaNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Children's pain in emergency departments (EDs) is poorly managed by nurses, despite evidence that pain is one of the most commonly presenting complaints of children attending the ED. Our objectives were 2-fold: to verify if tailored educational interventions with emergency pediatric nurses would improve nurses' knowledge of pain management and nurses' pain management practices (documentation of pain, administration of analgesics, nonpharmacological interventions). METHODS: This intervention study with a pre-post design (baseline, immediately after the intervention [T-2], and 6 months after intervention [T-3]) used a sample of nurses (N = 50) and retrospective chart reviews of children (N = 450; 150 charts reviewed each at baseline, T-2, and T-3) who presented themselves in the ED with a diagnosis known to generate moderate to severe pain (burns, acute abdominal pain, deep lacerations, fracture, sprain). Principal outcomes: nurses' knowledge of pain management (Pediatric Nurses Knowledge and Attitudes Survey [PNKAS] on pain) and nurses' clinical practices of pain management (Pain Management Experience Evaluation [PMEE]). RESULTS: Response rate on the PNKAS was 84% (42/50) at baseline and 50% (21/42) at T-2. Mean scores on PNKAS were 28.2 (SD, 4.9; max, 42.0) at baseline and 31.0 (SD, 4.6) at T-2. Results from paired t test showed significant difference between both times (t = -3.129, P = 0.005). Nurses who participated in the capsules improved their documentation of pain from baseline (59.3%) to T-2 (80.8%; chi = 12.993, P < 0.001) as well as from baseline (59.3%) to T-3 (89.1%; chi = 29.436, P < 0.001). In addition, nurses increased their nonpharmacological interventions from baseline (16.7%) to T-3 (31.9%; chi = 8.623, P = 0.003). Finally, we obtained significant differences on pain documentation between the group of nurses who attended at least 1 capsule and the group of nurses who did not attend any capsule at both times (T-2 and T-3; chi = 20.424, P < 0.001; chi = 33.333, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The interventions contributed to the improvement of the nurses' knowledge of pain management and some of the practices over time. We believe that an intervention tailored to nurses' needs and schedule has more impact than just passive diffusion of educational content.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Emergency CareSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207