Factors influencing pain management by nurses in emergency departments in Central Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To observe pain management practices by nurses in emergency departments (EDs) in Central Africa and to study the various factors influencing these practices. METHODS: Time to first analgesic treatment was recorded in 53 patients presenting to the ED of a Central African hospital in February 2005. A survey was simultaneously conducted on the attitudes and commitment of nurses towards the management of pain. All 28 nurses assigned to the ED agreed to participate in the survey. RESULTS: Severity of pain was the factor most influencing the time to first analgesia following admission to the ED. Severe pain was assessed as a score of > or = 7 on a 1-10 visual analogue scale. The median time to first analgesia in patients with severe pain was 150 min, which was considerably longer than in patients without severe pain (p = 0.003). A quarter of the 28 nurses had no official training in pain management and most (> 80%) were unable to carry out a formal assessment of pain. The majority (> 90%) were confident of their ability to treat pain. Thirteen (48%) were of the opinion that cultural factors influenced their management of pain and 67% admitted that they had some fears about administering morphine to patients in the ED. CONCLUSION: Pain management by nurses in the ED in Central Africa is inadequate. Cultural factors greatly influence how nurses manage pain in the emergency room. Patients would benefit considerably if nurses received additional education about the diagnosis and management of acute pain in EDs in Central Africa.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it