Pain induced by investigations and procedures commonly administered to older adults in the emergency department: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the level of pain induced by common interventions performed in older adults consulting to the ED. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre observational cohort study in two academic EDs (Quebec City, Canada) between June 2018 and December 2019. A convenience sample of well-oriented and haemodynamically stable older adults (≥65 years old) who underwent at least two interventions during their ED stay was recruited. The level of pain was assessed using an 11-point Numerous Rating Scale (NRS) and is presented using median and IQR or categorised as no pain (0), mild (1-3), moderate (4-6) or severe pain (7-10). RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. The mean age was 77.8±8.0 years old and 54.4% were female . The number of pain assessments per intervention ranged between 22 (urinary catheterisation) and 240 (intravenous catheter). All imaging investigations (X-rays, CT and bedside ultrasound) were associated with a median level of pain of 0. The median level of pain for other interventions was as follows: blood samplings (n=231, NRS 1 (IQR 0-3)), intravenous catheters (n=240, NRS 2 (IQR 0-4)), urinary catheterisations (n=22, NRS 4.5 (IQR 2-6)), cervical collars (n=50, NRS 5 (IQR 0-8)) and immobilisation mattresses (n=34, NRS 5 (IQR 0-8)). Urinary catheterisations (63.8%), cervical collars (56.0%) and immobilisation mattresses (52.9%) frequently induced moderate or severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Most interventions administered to older adults in the ED are associated with no or low pain intensity. However, urinary catheterisation and spinal motion restriction devices are frequently associated with moderate or severe pain.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".