Analgesic Use Among Adults with a Trauma-Related Emergency Department Visit: A Retrospective Cohort Study from Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A better understanding of current acute pain-driven analgesic practices within the emergency department (ED) and upon discharge will provide foundational information in this area, as few studies have been conducted in Canada. METHODS: Administrative data were used to identify adults with a trauma-related ED visit in the Edmonton area in 2017/2018. Characteristics of the ED visit included time from initial contact to analgesic administration, type of analgesics dispensed during and upon being discharged home directly from the ED (≤ 7 days after), and patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 50,950 ED visits by 40,505 adults with trauma were included. Analgesics were administered in 24.2% of visits, of which non-opioids were dispensed in 77.0% and opioids were dispensed in 49.0%. Time to analgesic initiation occurred more than 2 h after first contact. Upon discharge, 11.5% received a non-opioid and 15.2% received an opioid analgesic, among whom 18.5% received a daily dose ≥ 50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and 30.2% received > 7 days of supply. Three hundred and seventeen adults newly met criteria for chronic opioid use after the ED visit, among whom 43.5% received an opioid dispensation upon discharge; of these individuals, 26.8% had a daily dose ≥ 50 MME and 65.9% received > 7 days of supply. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can be used to inform optimization of analgesic pharmacotherapy practices for the treatment of acute pain, which may include reducing the time to initiation of analgesics in the ED, as well as close consideration of recommendations for acute pain management upon discharge to provide ideal patient-centered, evidence-informed care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".