Patient- and Nurse-Controlled Analgesia: 22-Year Experience in a Pediatric Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pediatric pain management has rapidly changed over the last 2 decades. In this study, we describe the changing practices and adverse events (AEs) related to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and/or nurse-controlled analgesia (NCA) over a 22-year period. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, retrospective data from a single tertiary-care pediatric hospital were collected between 1994 and 2016. Subgroup analyses were done for surgical and medical case patients. We reported the number of times that PCA and/or NCA was ordered annually, the median and interquartile ranges for age, PCA and/or NCA duration and length of stay, and AE frequencies. RESULTS: Over 22 years, 32 338 PCAs and/or NCAs were ordered in this institution. Morphine and hydromorphone were used most commonly. Between 1994 and 2006, initial orders for PCA and/or NCA increased 2.5-fold. After 2007, initial orders for PCA and/or NCA rapidly decreased; after 2013, the decrease continued at a slower rate, with a total of 1007 orders in 2016. This decrease occurred despite increased hospital admissions and surgeries. Between 2007 and 2012, peripheral nerve blocks rapidly increased (10-fold). After 2002, 146 AEs were reported (1.0%). Of those, 50.5% were nonintercepted, and 20.6% were intercepted AEs; 5.5% and 6.2% were preventable and nonpreventable AEs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PCA and/or NCA usage continues to be common in pediatric patients, although usage has declined and stabilized in the setting of other emerging methods of analgesia and increases in the number of minimally invasive surgical procedures. The overall rate of AEs was extremely low. However, improvements to eliminate all errors are needed, especially with medications with a great risk of harm (such as opioids).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".