Paediatric pain management practice and policies across Alberta emergency departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many children requiring acute care receive suboptimal analgesia. OBJECTIVES: To describe paediatric pain management practices and policies in emergency departments (EDs) in Alberta. METHODS: A descriptive survey was distributed to each of the EDs in Alberta. RESULTS: A response rate of 67% (72 of 108) was obtained. Seventy-one percent (42 of 59) of EDs reported the use of a pain tool, 29.3% (17 of 58) reported mandatory pain documentation and 16.7% (10 of 60) had nurse-initiated pain protocols. Topical anesthetics were reported to be used for intravenous line insertion by 70.4% of respondents (38 of 54) and for lumbar puncture (LP) by 30.8% (12 of 39). According to respondents, infiltrated anesthetic was used for LP by 69.2% (27 of 39) of respondents, and oral sucrose was used infrequently for urinary catheterization (one of 46 [2.2%]), intravenous line insertion (zero of 54 [0%]) and LP (one of 39 [2.6%]). CONCLUSIONS: Few Alberta EDs use policies and protocols to manage paediatric pain. Noninvasive methods to limit procedural pain are underutilized. Canadian paediatricians must advocate for improved analgesia to narrow this knowledge-to-practice gap.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".