Addressing barriers to the implementation of an Acute Pain Service rib fracture pathway: effect on quality and outcomes of care for trauma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Successful clinical pathway implementation requires effectively addressing barriers to delivery prior to pathway introduction, and critical evaluation of impact post-delivery. We aimed to assess whether the implementation of an Acute Pain Service pathway, designed to address barriers identified prior to introduction, influenced the delivery of regional analgesia to high-risk rib fracture patients or was associated with changes in secondary clinical outcomes (respiratory complications, delirium, mortality, length of stay, and pain scores) and processes (Acute Pain Service consults, timely provision of regional analgesia, and use of non-regional analgesic modalities). METHODS: A quality improvement project was conducted and evaluated using retrospective observational data at a tertiary care trauma center between July 2018 and June 2023. System and process interventions were made to address potential hurdles to effective pathway implementation. Pre-pathway and post-pathway delivery of regional analgesia (truncal block or epidural) to patients with Rib Fracture Scores ≥6 was assessed using run charts, as well as statistically with pre-post comparisons. RESULTS: After pathway implementation, the use of regional analgesia increased from 16.4% to 19.7%, with run charts demonstrating a meaningful shift near the end of the study period; pre-post comparisons did not suggest a statistically significant change (p=0.195). Acute Pain Service consult rates increased from 46.7% to 49.6% (p=0.37). DISCUSSION: The implementation of an Acute Pain Service rib fracture analgesic pathway at a tertiary care trauma center did not substantially increase the proportion of patients who received a regional catheter for analgesia or lead to improvements in clinical outcomes. Further addressing structural aspects of care and refining patient selection criteria may be necessary to achieve better outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".