Practice Patterns and Assessment of Needs for Pediatric Pain Management in Alberta Emergency Departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many rural and community emergency departments (EDs) experience barriers to providing optimal pain care to children. In preparation for a quality improvement initiative, our team conducted a provincial pediatric pain management practice and needs assessment. METHODS: An online survey was sent to ED administrators and educators from March to May 2017. Themes included pain assessment, pain and distress management strategies, available resources, education, barriers to care, and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: Forty-five respondents, from 31 EDs representing all five geographic health zones in Alberta, completed the survey. Use of a pain assessment tool was reported at 93.5% (29/31 sites) of the sites. Topical anesthesia was employed "most of the time" before suturing at 67% (18/27) of sites, versus 15% (4/27) before blood work or IV insertion. Eighty-one percent (22/27) of sites reported physically restraining children for procedures "often", while 37% (10/27) reported use of comfort positioning "often". Digital distraction devices were available at 37% (10/27) of sites. Reported challenges included lack of resources (33.3%, 12/36), staff education/knowledge (33.3%, 12/36), and absent policies/poor policy adherence (25.0%, 9/36). Opportunities for improvement included staff member education (73.5%, 25/34) and more resources (58.8%, 20/34). Respondents rated their site's overall ability to manage children's pain as 50/100 [IQR:21,61]. CONCLUSION: General EDs report providing suboptimal children's pain care, with use of physical restraint for medical procedures, and under-utilization of evidence-based, inexpensive treatment options. There are many gaps in children's pain care in rural and community EDs which could be addressed through collaborative quality improvement initiatives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".