Treating and Reducing Anxiety and Pain in the Paediatric Emergency Department: The TRAPPED survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of children's pain and anxiety in the emergency department is likely suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: To determine the availability of currently used strategies in Canadian paediatric emergency departments. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey involving all centres of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada group was performed. The primary outcome was the availability of specific procedures for pain and anxiety management for children in the emergency department. One person per centre was identified to complete the survey. Data were collected from October 2013 to January 2014 using an electronic survey tool. RESULTS: All 15 Pediatric Emergency Research Canada centres agreed to participate. The verbal numerical scale was widely used (80%) to assess pain. One-half of respondents (53%) had access to a child life specialist. The following techniques were available for minor procedures: television as a distraction tool (87% of respondents), topical anesthetic before intravenous needle insertion (73%) and positioning of the child on parent's lap (60%); most remaining centres reported that these could be easily implemented. Intravenous morphine was available at every centre. Intranasal fentanyl was available (60%) or considered to be easy to implement (33%). Few centres reported availability of clinical guidelines regarding pain for doctors (27%) and nurses (40%); all respondents considered them to be easy to implement. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in paediatric pain and anxiety management strategies among tertiary care Canadian emergency departments. Several pain-reduction procedures (distraction, positioning on parent's lap, topical anesthetic, intranasal administration) were identified that could be easily implemented to address the gap.
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 | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".