35 Implementation of a quality improvement initiative to reduce pain and anxiety associated with needle-related procedures in a Canadian paediatric emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary Subject area Emergency Medicine - Paediatric Background Needle-related procedures such as intravenous (IV) insertion, venipuncture, and lumbar puncture (LP) are commonly performed in children, particularly in the emergency department (ED). Children consistently rate these needle-related procedures as very distressing. While topical anesthetics have been shown to be highly effective and are available, they are inconsistently used. The Children’s Comfort Promise was originally developed at the Minnesota Children’s Hospital. It requires nursing staff to use four strategies for children undergoing needle-related procedures: (1) topical anesthetic, (2) sucrose or breastfeeding if ≤ 12 months, (3) Comfort positioning (swaddling, skin-to-skin, or facilitated tucking if ≤ 12 months and sitting upright for children > 12 months), and (4) age-appropriate distraction. Objectives We sought to evaluate compliance with all 4 Comfort Promise strategies for managing children’s pain and anxiety during needle-related procedures in a Canadian paediatric ED. Design/Methods Implementation of The Comfort Promise in March 2020 included a focus group to perform a root cause analysis, designation of nurse champions, monthly steering committee and ED working group meetings, and didactic education sessions. Our institution’s decision support unit identified all encounters of children 0-17 years who underwent at least one needle-related procedure at our paediatric ED from January 1 to November 30, 2020. The outcome was compliance with all 4 Comfort Promise strategies. Balancing measures included adverse drug reactions and vasoconstriction. We used statistical process control to analyze the outcome from 2 months preceding and 7 months following implementation. Results From January 1 to November 30, 2020, 21,600 encounters were identified, of which 10,294/21,600 (47.7%) were female. Age ranged from 0-17 years with a mean (SD) of 6.9 (5.5) years. Needle-related procedures were performed in 730/21,600 (3.4%) encounters, most commonly IV insertion (289/730, 39.6%) and venipuncture for blood sampling (232/730, 31.8%). Half of all encounters had no compliance strategies electronically recorded (363/730, 49.7%). Compliance with all Comfort Promise strategies increased over the study period (Figure 1). Topical anesthetic increased from 3/35 (8.6%) to 35/83 (42.2%). Sucrose or breastfeeding increased from 0/6 (0%) to 2/16 (12.5%). Comfort positioning increased from 0/35 (0%) to 26/83 (31.3%). Distraction increased from 0/35 (0%) to 22/83 (26.5%). There were no adverse drug reactions or vasoconstriction. Conclusion Implementation of The Comfort Promise in a Canadian paediatric ED resulted in greater use of strategies, particularly topical anesthetic, to reduce needle-related distress in children. Ongoing compliance will depend on consistent electronic recording and provider education.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".