首页> 外文OA文献 >Pain Intervention for Infant Lumbar Puncture in the Emergency Department: Physician Practice and Beliefs
【2h】

Pain Intervention for Infant Lumbar Puncture in the Emergency Department: Physician Practice and Beliefs

机译:急诊科婴儿腰椎穿刺的疼痛干预:医师实践和信念

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objectives:  The objectives were to characterize physician beliefs and practice of analgesia and anesthesia use for infant lumbar puncture (LP) in the emergency department (ED) and to determine if provider training type, experience, and beliefs are associated with reported pain intervention use. Methods:  An anonymous survey was distributed to ED faculty and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows at five Midwestern hospitals. Questions consisted of categorical, yes/no, descriptive, and incremental responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs). Results:  A total of 156 of 164 surveys (95%) distributed were completed and analyzed. Training background of respondents was 52% emergency medicine (EM), 30% PEM, and 18% pediatrics. Across training types, there was no difference in the belief that pain treatment was worthwhile (overall 78%) or in the likelihood of using at least one pain intervention. Pharmacologic pain interventions (sucrose, injectable lidocaine, and topical anesthetic) were used in the majority of LPs by 20, 29, and 27% of respondents, respectively. Nonpharmacologic pain intervention (pacifier/nonnutritive sucking) was used in the majority of LPs by 67% of respondents. Many respondents indicated that they never used sucrose (53%), lidocaine (41%), or anesthetic cream (49%). Physicians who thought pain treatment was worthwhile were more likely to use both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain interventions than those who did not (93% vs. 53%, OR = 10.98, 95% CI = 4.16 to 29.00). The number of LPs performed or supervised per year was not associated with pain intervention use. Other than pacifiers, injectable lidocaine was the most frequently reported pain intervention. Conclusions:  Provider beliefs regarding infant pain are associated with variation in anesthesia and analgesia use during infant LP in the ED. Although the majority of physicians hold the belief that pain intervention is worthwhile in this patient group, self‐reported pharmacologic interventions to reduce pain associated with infant LP are used regularly by less than one‐third. Strategies targeting physician beliefs on infant pain should be developed to improve pain intervention use in the ED for infant LPs.
机译:目的:objectives目的是确定急诊室(ED)的婴儿腰腰穿刺(LP)的医师信念和使用镇痛和麻醉的实践,并确定提供者的培训类型,经验和信念是否与所报告的疼痛干预措施有关。方法:Mid向中西部五家医院的ED教职工和儿科急诊医学(PEM)研究员分发了一项匿名调查。问题包括分类,是/否,描述性和增量回答。使用具有置信区间(CI)和优势比(OR)的描述性统计数据分析数据。结果:distributed完成并分析了164个调查中的156个(占95%)。受访者的培训背景是52%的急诊医学(EM),30%的PEM和18%的儿科。在所有训练类型中,认为疼痛治疗值得(总78%)或使用至少一种疼痛干预的可能性的看法没有差异。多数LP中分别使用药理性疼痛干预措施(蔗糖,可注射利多卡因和局部麻醉药),分别有20%,29%和27%的受访者使用了这种药物。 67%的受访者在大多数LP中使用了非药物性疼痛干预措施(安抚奶嘴/非营养性吮吸)。许多受访者表示,他们从未使用过蔗糖(53%),利多卡因(41%)或麻醉霜(49%)。认为值得进行疼痛治疗的医师比未接受疼痛治疗的医师更可能同时使用药物和非药物疼痛干预措施(93%对53%,OR = 10.98,95%CI = 4.16至29.00)。每年执行或监督的LP数量与使用疼痛干预措施无关。除安抚奶嘴外,可注射的利多卡因是最常报道的疼痛干预措施。结论:服务提供者对婴儿疼痛的信念与急诊室婴儿LP期间麻醉和镇痛使用的差异有关。尽管大多数医生认为在该患者组中值得进行疼痛干预,但定期报告使用自行报告的药理干预措施来减轻与婴儿LP相关的疼痛的比例不到三分之一。应制定针对医师对婴儿疼痛的信念的策略,以改善急诊室对婴儿LPs的疼痛干预。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号