MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116012428 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x14001277

Emergency Medical Services Provider Comfort with Prehospital Analgesia Administration to Children

2014· article· en· W2116012428 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amaly Rahman, Sarah Curtis, Beth DeBruyne, Sunil Sookram, Denise Thomson, S Lutz, Samina Ali

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthCochraneWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersAmerican Pain Society
KeywordsMedicineJudgementPain managementEmergency medical servicesFamily medicineMedical emergencyClinical judgementEmergency medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The undertreatment of pediatric pain is a significant concern among families, clinicians, and researchers. Although some have examined prehospital pain management, the deterrents to pediatric analgesia administration by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have not yet been examined in Canada. Problem This study describes EMS pain-management practices and prehospital provider comfort treating pediatric pain. It highlights differences in pain management between adults and children and assesses the potential barriers, misconceptions, difficulties, and needs related to provision of pediatric analgesia. METHODS: A study-specific survey tool was created and distributed to all Primary Care Paramedics (PCPs) and Advanced Care Paramedics (ACPs) over four mandatory educational seminars in the city of Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) from September through December 2008. RESULTS: Ninety-four percent (191/202) of EMS personnel for the city of Edmonton completed the survey. The majority of respondents were male (73%, 139/191), aged 26-35 (42%, 80/191), and had been in practice less than 10 years (53%, 101/191). Seventy-four percent (141/191) of those surveyed were ACPs, while 26% (50/191) were PCPs. Although the majority of respondents reported using both pain scales and clinical judgement to assess pain for adults (85%, 162/191) and adolescents (86%, 165/191), children were six times more likely than adults (31%, 59/191 vs 5%, 10/191) to be assessed by clinical judgement alone. Emergency Medical Services personnel felt more comfortable treating adults than children (P < .001), and they were less likely to treat children even if they were experiencing identical types and intensities of pain as adults (all P values <.05) and adolescents (all P values < .05). Twenty-five percent of providers (37/147) assumed pediatric patients required less analgesia due to immature nervous systems. Three major barriers to treating children's pain included limited clinical experience (34%, 37/110), difficulty in communication (24%, 26/110) and inability to assess children's pain accurately (21%, 23/110). CONCLUSION: Emergency Medical Services personnel self-report that children's pain is less rigorously measured and treated than adults' pain. Educational initiatives aimed at increasing clinical exposure to children, as well as further education regarding simple pain measurement tools for use in the field, may help to address identified barriers and discomfort with assessing and treating children.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207