A nerve block supply cart and nerve block champions program associated with increased fascia iliaca block use

JEM reports Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jemrpt.2025.100164
Joseph R. Brown , Michael Heffler , Peter Alsharif , Brigit Noon , Justin Inman , Eric Bustos , Juliana Wilson , Ryan Tucker
{"title":"A nerve block supply cart and nerve block champions program associated with increased fascia iliaca block use","authors":"Joseph R. Brown ,&nbsp;Michael Heffler ,&nbsp;Peter Alsharif ,&nbsp;Brigit Noon ,&nbsp;Justin Inman ,&nbsp;Eric Bustos ,&nbsp;Juliana Wilson ,&nbsp;Ryan Tucker","doi":"10.1016/j.jemrpt.2025.100164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks (UGNBs) are a vital component of a multimodal approach to managing pain in the Emergency Department (ED). However, implementation has not been universally adopted due to their time-consuming nature and provider discomfort with the procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The primary outcome of this study was to deploy a new UGNB cart and group of nerve block “champions” and evaluate whether the rate of infrainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (IFICB) use increased in geriatric hip fractures. Secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ED, complications associated with the UGNB and Morphine Equivalents used compared to patients who did not receive the IFICB.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, observational cohort study performed at a single urban, academic site. Inclusion criteria was based on institutional coding of a hip fracture. Each chart was reviewed as to whether the patient received an IFICIB as well as secondary outcomes like ED length of stay (LOS). Finally, the treating physician was surveyed regarding their decision to perform an IFICB.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 146 eligible patients, 15.8 % received an IFICB, an increase from 2.6 % in 2019. 55 physicians were enrolled with a 96 % response rate. Commonly cited reasons for not performing the block were controlled pain and lack of training. Of the 23 UGNBs performed, 14 involved a champion. Despite length of time being cited 10.6 % of the time for not performing the IFICB, patients who received a IFICB had a shorter ED LOS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study showed that the creation of nerve block “champions” and implementation of an UGNB cart was associated with an increase in their utilization of the IFICB.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73546,"journal":{"name":"JEM reports","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JEM reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773232025000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks (UGNBs) are a vital component of a multimodal approach to managing pain in the Emergency Department (ED). However, implementation has not been universally adopted due to their time-consuming nature and provider discomfort with the procedure.

Objectives

The primary outcome of this study was to deploy a new UGNB cart and group of nerve block “champions” and evaluate whether the rate of infrainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (IFICB) use increased in geriatric hip fractures. Secondary outcomes included length of stay in the ED, complications associated with the UGNB and Morphine Equivalents used compared to patients who did not receive the IFICB.

Methods

This was a prospective, observational cohort study performed at a single urban, academic site. Inclusion criteria was based on institutional coding of a hip fracture. Each chart was reviewed as to whether the patient received an IFICIB as well as secondary outcomes like ED length of stay (LOS). Finally, the treating physician was surveyed regarding their decision to perform an IFICB.

Results

Of the 146 eligible patients, 15.8 % received an IFICB, an increase from 2.6 % in 2019. 55 physicians were enrolled with a 96 % response rate. Commonly cited reasons for not performing the block were controlled pain and lack of training. Of the 23 UGNBs performed, 14 involved a champion. Despite length of time being cited 10.6 % of the time for not performing the IFICB, patients who received a IFICB had a shorter ED LOS.

Conclusion

This study showed that the creation of nerve block “champions” and implementation of an UGNB cart was associated with an increase in their utilization of the IFICB.
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
神经阻滞供应推车和神经阻滞冠军计划与筋膜髂阻滞使用增加有关
背景超声引导神经阻滞(ugnb)是多模式治疗急诊科(ED)疼痛的重要组成部分。然而,由于其耗时的性质和提供者对程序的不适,实施尚未被普遍采用。目的:本研究的主要结果是部署一种新的UGNB推车和一组神经阻滞“冠军”,并评估腹股沟下筋膜髂腔室阻滞(IFICB)在老年髋部骨折中的使用率是否增加。次要结局包括在ED的住院时间,与未接受IFICB的患者相比,与UGNB相关的并发症和吗啡当量的使用。方法:这是一项前瞻性、观察性队列研究,在一个单一的城市学术场所进行。纳入标准基于髋部骨折的机构编码。对每张图表进行审查,以确定患者是否接受了IFICIB以及次要结局,如ED住院时间(LOS)。最后,对治疗医生进行调查,以决定是否进行IFICB。在146名符合条件的患者中,15.8%的患者接受了IFICB治疗,高于2019年的2.6%。55名医生入选,反应率为96%。不进行拦阻的常见原因是可控的疼痛和缺乏训练。在演出的23场ugnb中,有14场涉及冠军。尽管有10.6%的时间被引用为不进行IFICB,但接受IFICB的患者ED LOS较短。本研究表明,神经阻滞“冠军”的创建和UGNB推车的实施与他们对IFICB的利用率增加有关。
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
JEM reports
JEM reports Emergency Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
54 days
期刊最新文献
Erratum regarding missing statements in previously published articles Erratum regarding missing statements in previously published articles Erratum regarding missing statements in previously published articles Erratum regarding missing statements in previously published articles The dose of iodinated contrast required for a CT scan is below the toxicological threshold of concern for nephrotoxicity: a toxicological perspective
×
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:604180095
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