Dataset Information

Identifying values and preferences around the choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain in emergency and prehospital settings: using group concept mapping methodology.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The main study aim was to examine the applicability of a novel method to assess the criterion of values and preferences within the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision framework. The group concept mapping (GCM) approach was applied to identify, organise and prioritise values and preferences in the example of health professionals' choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain. SETTING:Prehospital and emergency care centres in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. PARTICIPANTS:Acute care health professionals with qualifications to administer analgesic agents to patients in emergency and prehospital settings, including advanced ambulance assistants, rescue officers, paramedics, emergency physicians and emergency nurses, participated in an online survey in which statements were generated (n=40) and structured (n=11) and finally analysed and interpreted in a validation meeting (n=4). RESULTS:Using GCM, ideas were generated and structured through online participation. Results were interpreted at a validation meeting. In total, 111 unique ideas were identified and organised into seven clusters: drug profile, administration, context, health professionals' preferences and logistics, safety profile, patient's medical history and acute clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS:Based on GCM, a conceptual model was developed, and values and preferences around choice of analgesia in emergency care were revealed. Health professionals within acute care can apply the conceptual model to support their decision-making when choosing the best available treatment for pain for their patients in emergency care.

SUBMITTER: Nielsen KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7066635 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Identifying values and preferences around the choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain in emergency and prehospital settings: using group concept mapping methodology.

Nielsen Kristina Tomra KT Rasmussen Marianne Uggen MU Overgaard Anders Foehrby AF Klokker Louise L Christensen Robin R Wæhrens Eva Ejlersen EE

BMJ open 20200310 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>The main study aim was to examine the applicability of a novel method to assess the criterion of values and preferences within the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision framework. The group concept mapping (GCM) approach was applied to identify, organise and prioritise values and preferences in the example of health professionals' choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain.<h4>Setting</h4>Prehospital and emergency c ...[more]

PMID: 32161154

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSurgical options for weight loss vary considerably in risks and benefits, but the relative importance of procedure-associated characteristics in patient decision making is largely unknown.ObjectiveTo identify patient preferences for risks, benefits, and other attributes of treatment options available to individuals who are candidates for bariatric surgery.Design, setting, and participantsThis discrete choice experiment of weight loss procedures was performed as an internet-based survey administered to patients recruited from bariatric surgery information sessions in the State of Michigan. Each procedure was described by the following set of attributes: (1) treatment method, (2) recovery and reversibility, (3) time that treatment has been available, (4) expected weight loss, (5) effect on other medical conditions, (6) risk of complication, (7) adverse effects, (8) changes to diet, and (9) out-of-pocket costs. Participants chose between surgical profiles by comparing attributes. Survey data were collected from May 1, 2015, through January 30, 2016, and analyzed from February 1 to June 30, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated relative value of risks and benefits for leading weight-loss surgical options and marginal willingness to pay for procedure attributes. A latent class analysis identified respondent subgroups.ResultsAmong the 815 respondents (79.9% women; mean [SD] age, 44.5 [12.0] years), profiles of hypothetical procedures that included resolution of medical conditions (coefficient for full resolution, 0.229 [95% CI, 0.177 to 0.280; P < .001]; coefficient for no resolution, -0.207 [95% CI, -0.254 to -0.159; P < .001]), higher total weight loss (coefficient for each additional 20% loss, 0.185 [95% CI, 0.166 to 0.205; P < .001]), and lower out-of-pocket costs (coefficient for each additional $1000, -0.034 [95% CI, -0.042 to -0.025; P < .001]) were most likely to be selected. Younger respondents were more likely than older respondents to choose treatments with higher weight loss (coefficient for loss of 80% excess weight 0.543 [95% CI, 0.435-0.651] vs 0.397 [95% CI, 0.315-0.482]) and were more sensitive to out-of-pocket costs (coefficient for $100 out-of-pocket costs, 0.346 [95% CI, 0.221-0.470] vs 0.262 [95% CI, 0.174 to 0.350]; coefficient for $15 000 in out-of-pocket costs, -0.768 [95% CI, -0.938 to -0.598] vs -0.384 [95% CI, -0.500 to -0.268]). Marginal willingness to pay indicated respondents would pay $5470 for losing each additional 20% of excess body weight and $12 843 for resolution of existing medical conditions, the most desired procedure attributes. Latent class analysis identified the following 3 unobserved subgroups: cost-sensitive (most concerned with costs); benefit-focused (most concerned with excess weight loss and resolution of medical conditions); and procedure-focused (most concerned with how the treatment itself worked, including recovery and reversibility).Conclusions and relevanceCandidates for bariatric surgery identified costs, expected weight loss, and resolution of medical conditions as the most important characteristics of weight loss surgery decisions. Other information, such as risk of complications and adverse effects, were important to patients but less so.

Project description:ObjectiveIn the UK there are around 5400 deaths annually from injury. Tranexamic acid (TXA) prevents bleeding and has been shown to reduce trauma mortality. However, only 5% of UK major trauma patients who are at risk of haemorrhage receive prehospital TXA. This review aims to examine the evidence regarding factors influencing the prehospital administration of TXA to trauma patients.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesAMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2010 to 2020; searches were updated in June 2022.Clinicaltrialsgov and OpenGrey were also searched and forward and backwards citation chasing performed.Eligibility criteriaAll primary research reporting factors influencing TXA administration to trauma patients in the prehospital setting was included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers performed the selection process, quality assessment and data extraction. Data were tabulated, grouped by setting and influencing factor and synthesised narratively.ResultsTwenty papers (278 249 participants in total) were included in the final synthesis; 13 papers from civilian and 7 from military settings. Thirteen studies were rated as 'moderate' using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Several common factors were identified: knowledge and skills; consequences and social influences; injury type (severity, injury site and mechanism); protocols; resources; priorities; patient age; patient sex.ConclusionsThis review highlights an absence of high-quality research. Preliminary evidence suggests a host of system and individual-level factors that may be important in determining whether TXA is administered to trauma patients in the prehospital setting.Funding and registrationThis review was supported by Research Capability Funding from the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust and the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula.Prospero registration numberCRD42020162943.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to investigate clinical benefits and economic costs of inhaled methoxyflurane when used by ambulance staff for prehospital emergency patients with trauma. Comparison is to usual analgesic practice (UAP) in the UK in which patient records were selected if treatment had been with Entonox® or intravenous morphine or intravenous paracetamol.MethodsOver a 12-month evaluation period, verbal numerical pain scores (VNPS) were gathered from adults with moderate to severe trauma pain attended by ambulance staff trained in administering and supplied with methoxyflurane. Control VNPS were obtained from ambulance database records of UAP in similar patients for the same period. Statistical modelling enabled comparisons of methoxyflurane to UAP, where we employed an Ordered Probit panel regression model for pain, linked by observational rules to VNPS.ResultsOverall, 96 trained paramedics and technicians from the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EMAS) prepared 510 doses of methoxyflurane for administration to a total of 483 patients. Comparison data extracted from the EMAS database of UAP episodes involved: 753 patients using Entonox®, 802 patients using intravenous morphine, and 278 patients using intravenous paracetamol. Modelling results included demonstration of faster pain relief with inhaled methoxyflurane (all p-values < 0.001). Methoxyflurane's time to achieve maximum pain relief was estimated to be significantly shorter: 26.4 min (95%CI 25.0-27.8) versus Entonox® 44.4 min (95%CI 39.5-49.3); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.0-27.9) versus intravenous morphine 41.8 min (95%CI 38.9-44.7); 26.5 min (95%CI 25.1-28.0) versus intravenous paracetamol 40.8 (95%CI 34.7-46.9). Scenario analyses showed that durations spent in severe pain were significantly less for methoxyflurane. Costing scenarios showed the added benefits of methoxyflurane were achieved at higher cost, eg versus Entonox® the additional cost per treated patient was estimated to be £12.30.ConclusionWhen administered to adults with moderate or severe pain due to trauma inhaled methoxyflurane reduced pain more rapidly and to a greater extent than Entonox® and parenteral analgesics. Inclusion of inhaled methoxyflurane to the suite of prehospital analgesics provides a clinically useful addition, but one that is costlier per treated patient.

Project description:Patients value effective pain relief. Complications of inadequate pain control include increased risk of infection, decreased patient comfort and progression to chronic pain, all of which have significant socioeconomic consequence. Accessibility to analgesia is vital to effective administration. This improvement project aimed to improve the consistency and adequacy of analgesia prescribing for trauma inpatients over a 12-month period. Four PDSA ('plan, do, study, act') cycles resulted in sustained and significant improvements in analgesia prescription. The interventions included senior encouragement, teaching sessions, targeted inductions and implementation of a novel e-prescribing protocol. Prospective data and real-time discussion from stakeholder medical and management teams enabled iterative change to practice. Drug charts were reviewed for all trauma inpatients (n=276) over a 10-month period, recording all analgesia prescribed within 24?hours of admission. Each prescription was scored (maximum of 10 points) according to parameters agreed by the acute pain specialty leaders. An improving trend was observed in the analgesia score over the study period. Each intervention was associated with improved practice. Based on observed improvements, a novel electronic prescribing protocol was developed in conjunction with the information technology department, resulting in maximum scores for prescribing which were sustained over the final 3 months of the study. This was subsequently adopted as standard practice within the department. One year following completion of the project, a further 3?weeks of data were collected to assess long-term sustainability-scores remained 10 out of 10. Addressing the prescribing habits of junior doctors improved accessibility to analgesia for trauma patients. The electronic prescribing tool made prescribing straightforward and faster, and was the most successful intervention. Doctor satisfaction using this time-saving tool was high. Identifying a stakeholder within the information technology department proved pivotal to transferring the project aims into clinical practice.

Project description:Survival after major trauma is considered to be time dependent. Efficient prehospital care with rapid transport is the norm in developed countries, which is not available in many lower middle and low-income countries. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of prehospital time and primary treatment given on survival of major trauma patients in a setting without prehospital care.This prospective observational study was carried out in a university hospital in Mumbai, from January to December 2014. The hospital has a trauma service but no organized prehospital care or defined interhospital transfer protocols. All patients with life- and/or limb-threatening injuries were included in the study. Injury time and arrival time were noted and the interval was defined as "prehospital time" for the directly arriving patients and as "time to tertiary care" for those transferred. Primary outcome measure was in-hospital death (or discharge).Of 1181 patients, 352 were admitted directly from the trauma scene and 829 were transferred from other hospitals. In-hospital mortality was associated with age, mechanism and mode of injury, shock, Glasgow Coma Score <9, Injury Severity Score ≥16, need for intubation, and ventilatory support on arrival; but neither with prehospital time nor with time to tertiary care. Transferred patients had a significantly higher mortality (odds ratio = 1.869, 95% confidence interval = 1.233-2.561, P = 0.005) despite fewer patients with severe injury. Two hundred and ninety-four (35%) of these needed airway intervention while 108 (13%) needed chest tube insertion on arrival to the trauma unit suggesting inadequate care at primary facility.Mortality is not associated with prehospital time but with transfers from primary care; probably due to deficient care. To improve survival after major trauma, enhancement of resources for resuscitation and capacity building of on-duty doctors in primary centers should be a priority in countries with limited resources.

Dataset Information

Identifying values and preferences around the choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain in emergency and prehospital settings: using group concept mapping methodology.

Publications

Identifying values and preferences around the choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain in emergency and prehospital settings: using group concept mapping methodology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets