Pain Treatment in Polish Emergency Medical Teams—Is the Pain Management Entitlement Being Used?—A Retrospective Study

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Safety Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.3390/safety9040074
Bartosz Pryba, Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska, Anna Małecka-Dubiela
{"title":"Pain Treatment in Polish Emergency Medical Teams—Is the Pain Management Entitlement Being Used?—A Retrospective Study","authors":"Bartosz Pryba, Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska, Anna Małecka-Dubiela","doi":"10.3390/safety9040074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Pain has been identified as the most common reason for emergency medical service (EMS) calls. Despite many years of pain research, it is still true that oligoanalgesia is an ongoing phenomenon. This demonstrates the need for the implementation of new solutions and for further analyses on the causes of inadequate pain treatment. The study was undertaken to analyze analgesic treatment implemented in specialist “S” and basic “P” Emergency Medical Teams (EMTs). Methods: This retrospective study was based on the analysis of medical records using the emergency medical service card. A total of 1333 medical files were analyzed, of which 539 cases were qualified for the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The analysis has shown that the majority of interventions were undertaken by basic emergency medical teams and that acute pain was the most common reason for contacting the EMS. However, only 62.52% of patients received analgesia. It was shown that the frequency of administering paracetamol, metamizole, and ketoprofen was proportional to the increase in pain intensity. Similar correlations were identified in the cases of morphine, fentanyl, and drotaverine, which were most often administered to patients with the most severe pain. Conclusions: The nature and location of pain, as well as its intensity, affected the choice of analgesia. Opioids were administered more frequently with more extensive injuries and at greater pain intensity. Significant differences were found in the frequency at which acetylsalicylic acid was administered more often in “S” EMTs and drotaverine more often in “P” EMTs. The intravenous route was found to be the most common route of analgesia administration in EMTs.","PeriodicalId":36827,"journal":{"name":"Safety","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9040074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pain has been identified as the most common reason for emergency medical service (EMS) calls. Despite many years of pain research, it is still true that oligoanalgesia is an ongoing phenomenon. This demonstrates the need for the implementation of new solutions and for further analyses on the causes of inadequate pain treatment. The study was undertaken to analyze analgesic treatment implemented in specialist “S” and basic “P” Emergency Medical Teams (EMTs). Methods: This retrospective study was based on the analysis of medical records using the emergency medical service card. A total of 1333 medical files were analyzed, of which 539 cases were qualified for the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: The analysis has shown that the majority of interventions were undertaken by basic emergency medical teams and that acute pain was the most common reason for contacting the EMS. However, only 62.52% of patients received analgesia. It was shown that the frequency of administering paracetamol, metamizole, and ketoprofen was proportional to the increase in pain intensity. Similar correlations were identified in the cases of morphine, fentanyl, and drotaverine, which were most often administered to patients with the most severe pain. Conclusions: The nature and location of pain, as well as its intensity, affected the choice of analgesia. Opioids were administered more frequently with more extensive injuries and at greater pain intensity. Significant differences were found in the frequency at which acetylsalicylic acid was administered more often in “S” EMTs and drotaverine more often in “P” EMTs. The intravenous route was found to be the most common route of analgesia administration in EMTs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
波兰紧急医疗团队的疼痛治疗-是否使用了疼痛管理权利?-回顾性研究
简介:疼痛已被确定为紧急医疗服务(EMS)呼叫的最常见原因。尽管对疼痛进行了多年的研究,但少痛仍然是一种持续存在的现象。这表明需要实施新的解决方案,并对疼痛治疗不足的原因进行进一步分析。本研究旨在分析专科“S”和基本“P”急救医疗队(EMTs)实施的镇痛治疗。方法:对急诊医疗卡病历进行回顾性分析。共分析1333份病历,其中539例符合纳入和排除标准。结果:分析表明,大多数干预措施是由基层急救医疗队进行的,急性疼痛是联系EMS的最常见原因。然而,只有62.52%的患者接受了镇痛。结果表明,扑热息痛、安咪唑和酮洛芬的使用频率与疼痛强度的增加成正比。在吗啡、芬太尼和氯他弗林的病例中也发现了类似的相关性,这些药物最常用于疼痛最严重的患者。结论:疼痛的性质、部位及疼痛强度影响镇痛方法的选择。阿片类药物的使用频率更高,损伤范围更广,疼痛强度更大。在“S”型EMTs中,乙酰水杨酸的使用频率更高,而在“P”型EMTs中,乙酰水杨酸的使用频率更高。静脉给药是EMTs最常用的给药途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Safety
Safety Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
71
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Enhancing System Safety and Reliability through Integrated FMEA and Game Theory: A Multi-Factor Approach General Knowledge and Attitudes about Safety and Emergency Evacuation: The Case of a Higher Education Institution Simultaneous Enhancement of Welder Health and Aluminum Weld Joint Quality Using Controlled Welding Room Condition Control Transitions in Level 3 Automation: Safety Implications in Mixed-Autonomy Traffic Improving Functional Exercises Based on Experts’ Evaluation Weights for Emergency Responses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1