Search

In this chapter, through prose and poetry, physicians explore their experiences with cancer. These narratives extend our understanding of cancer’s impact on health beyond the biomedical domain. In gathering and listening to these stories we tell ourselves and others, our goal is to foster more humanistic and holistic care for those with cancer.

Introduction Pain is the most common symptom prompting an emergency department visit and emergency physicians are responsible for managing both acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain resulting from a broad range of illnesses and injuries. The responsibility to treat must be balanced by the duty to limit harm resulting from analgesics. In recent years, opioid-related adverse effects, including overdose and deaths, have increased dramatically in the USA. In response to the US opioid crisis, emergency physicians have broadened their analgesic armamentarium to include a variety of non-opioid approaches. For some of these therapies, sparse evidence exists to support their efficacy for emergency department use. The purpose of this paper is to review historical trends and emerging approaches to emergency department analgesia, with a particular focus on the USA and Canada. Methods We conducted a qualitative review of past and current descriptive studies of emergency department pain practice, as well as clinical trials of emerging pain treatment modalities. The review considers the increasing use of non-opioid and multimodal analgesic therapies, including migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, subdissociative-dose ketamine, nitrous oxide, intravenous lidocaine and gabapentinoids, as well as broad programmatic initiatives promoting the use of non-opioid analgesics and nonpharmacologic interventions. Results While migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, nitrous oxide and subdissociative-dose ketamine are supported by a relatively robust evidence base, data supporting the emergency department use of intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids and various non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions remain sparse. Conclusion Additional research on the relative safety and efficacy of non-opioid approaches to emergency department analgesia is needed. Despite a limited research base, it is likely that non-opioid analgesic modalities will be employed with increasing frequency. A new generation of emergency physicians is seeking additional training in pain medicine and increasing dialogue between emergency medicine and pain medicine researchers, educators and clinicians could contribute to better management of emergency department pain.

BACKGROUND To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199). MATERIALS AND METHODS In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p

Objective With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (e.g., pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain. Setting Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). Methods As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions. Perspective The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Conclusions Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (eg, pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain.SETTING: Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM).METHODS: As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions.PERSPECTIVE: The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms.CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

ObjectiveIntranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsWe randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).ResultsAt T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (ConclusionsTwo of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964.

Due to rising misuse, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moved hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) from DEA Schedule III to DEA Schedule II in October 2014. Aside from increasing regulatory scrutiny, rescheduling may have increased the administrative burden surrounding HCP prescribing. This study explored how HCP rescheduling and associated administrative barriers may have affected physician treatment of acute (aNCP) and chronic (cNCP) noncancer pain. To this end, physician members of the Texas Medical Association completed a self-administered online questionnaire. Pharmacotherapy treatment plan was measured with two questions asking physicians whether they were more likely to recommend HCPs, acetaminophen/codeine (APAP/codeine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tramadol, or other agents for the treatment of aNCP and cNCP. Two Likert-scaled items were used to assess administrative burden. In total, 1365 physicians responded (response rate = 15.39%). Physicians more frequently selected APAP/codeine (37%) for aNCP and tramadol (44%) for cNCP. A majority (78.8%) of physicians agreed that rescheduling led to modified prescribing, and those in agreement were significantly less likely than those who disagreed to prescribe HCPs for aNCP (24.2% vs. 56.4%; χ

Objectives To compared outcomes of regional nerve blocks with those of standard analgesics after hip fracture. Design Multisite randomized controlled trial from April 2009 to March 2013. Setting Three New York hospitals. Participants Individuals with hip fracture (N = 161). Intervention Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided, single-injection, femoral nerve block administered by emergency physicians at emergency department (ED) admission followed by placement of a continuous fascia iliaca block by anesthesiologists within 24 hours (n = 79) or conventional analgesics (n = 82). Measurements Pain (0-10 scale), distance walked on Postoperative Day (POD) 3, walking ability 6 weeks after discharge, opioid side effects. Results Pain scores 2 hours after ED presentation favored the intervention group over controls (3.5 vs 5.3, P = .002). Pain scores on POD 3 were significantly better for the intervention than the control group for pain at rest (2.9 vs 3.8, P = .005), with transfers out of bed (4.7 vs 5.9, P = .005), and with walking (4.1 vs 4.8, P = .002). Intervention participants walked significantly further than controls in 2 minutes on POD 3 (170.6 feet, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 109.3-232 vs 100.0 feet, 95% CI = 65.1-134.9; P = .04). At 6 weeks, intervention participants reported better walking and stair climbing ability (mean Functional Independence Measure locomotion score of 10.3 (95% CI = 9.6-11.0) vs 9.1 (95% CI = 8.2-10.0), P = .04). Intervention participants were significantly less likely to report opioid side effects (3% vs 12.4%, P = .03) and required 33% to 40% fewer parenteral morphine sulfate equivalents. Conclusion Femoral nerve blocks performed by emergency physicians followed by continuous fascia iliaca blocks placed by anesthesiologists are feasible and result in superior outcomes.

BACKGROUND The frequency of delirium among patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine delirium frequency and recognition by ED physicians among patients with advanced cancer presenting to the ED of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS The study population was a random sample of English-speaking patients with advanced cancer who presented to the ED and met the study criteria. All patients were assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) to screen for delirium and with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) to measure delirium severity (mild, ≤15; moderate, 16-22; and severe, ≥23). ED physicians were also asked whether their patients were delirious. RESULTS Twenty-two of the 243 enrolled patients (9%) had CAM-positive delirium, and their median MDAS score was 14 (range, 9-21 [30-point scale]). The median age of the enrolled patients was 62 years (range, 19-89 years). Patients with delirium had a poorer performance status than patients without delirium (P < .001); however, the 2 groups did not differ in other characteristics. Ten of the 99 patients who were 65 years old or older (10%) had CAM-positive delirium, whereas 12 of the 144 patients younger than 65 years (8%) did (P = .6). According to the MDAS scores, delirium was mild in 18 patients (82%) and moderate in 4 patients (18%). Physicians correctly identified delirium in 13 of the CAM-positive delirious patients (59%). CONCLUSIONS Delirium is relatively frequent and is underdiagnosed by physicians in patients with advanced cancer who are visiting the ED. Further research is needed to identify the optimal screening tool for delirium in ED. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2918–2924. © 2016 American Cancer Society

Purpose: The identification of patients at high risk for poor outcomes may allow for earlier palliative care and prevent futile interventions. We examined the association of presenting symptoms on risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital death among patients with cancer admitted through an emergency department (ED). Methods: We queried MD Anderson Cancer Center databases for all patients who visited the ED in 2010. Presenting symptoms, ICU admissions, and hospital deaths were reviewed; patient data analyzed; and risk factors for ICU admission and hospital mortality identified. Results: The main presenting symptoms were pain, fever, and respiratory distress. Of the patients with cancer who visited the ED, 5,362 (58%) were admitted to the hospital at least once (range, 1 to 13 admissions), 697 (13%) were admitted to the ICU at least once, and 587 (11%) died during hospitalization (31% of 233 patients with hematologic malignancies and 27% of 354 patients with solid tumors died in the ICU; P < .001). In multivariable logistic regression, presenting symptoms of respiratory distress or altered mental status; lung cancer, leukemia, or lymphoma; and nonwhite race were independent predictors of hospital death. Patients who died had a longer median length of hospital stay than patients discharged alive (14 v 6 days for hematologic malignancies and 7 v 5 days for solid tumors; P < .001). Conclusion: Patients with cancer admitted through an ED experience high ICU admission and hospital mortality rates. Patients with advanced cancer and respiratory distress or altered mental status may benefit from palliative care that avoids unnecessary interventions.

To compare pain relief between patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block (USFNB).A multicenter, prospective, randomized, clinical trial.The study was conducted in the emergency departments of 3 academic hospitals located in New York City.Patients aged ≥60 years presenting to the emergency department with hip fracture.A subgroup analysis from a larger data set was conducted of patients with intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures who received an USFNB. We compared pain scores at baseline and then at 2 and 3 hours after the nerve block was performed, and also assessed pain relief at 2 and 3 hours.Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive USFNB, of which 68 had follow-up data at 2 and 3 hours and were included in the data analysis. Thirty-one were diagnosed with intracapsular and 37 with extracapsular hip fractures. In both groups, reductions in pain scores were clinically and statistically significant. In the intracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.23 to 3.81 (P.0001) at 2 hours and from 6.23 to 3.87 (P.0001) at 3 hours. In the extracapsular group, mean pain scores decreased from 6.62 to 3.89 (P.0001) at 2 hours and from 6.62 to 3.46 (P.0001) at 3 hours. These differences were similar between the extracapsular and intracapsular groups at 2 hours (P = .92) and at 3 hours (P = .58), thus demonstrating similar reductions in pain in the 2 groups. The differences in pain relief between the intracapsular and extracapsular groups were also similar: 1.61 (confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.08) vs 1.35 (CI, 0.96-1.75) at 2 hours (P = .39) and 1.68 (CI, 1.21-2.15) vs 1.38 (CI, 0.89-1.87) at 3 hours (P = .38).Ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block was equally effective in reducing pain for patients with both intracapsular and extracapsular hip fractures.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

Objectives Pain and depression frequently co-occur in patients with cancer. Although pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation by these patients, depression frequently goes unrecognised during an ED visit. In this study, we assessed the risk for depression in patients with cancer presenting to the ED for uncontrolled pain and assessed the extent to which the risk for depression was associated with survival in this population. Methods Participants were consecutive patients with cancer taking Schedule II opioids (n=209) who presented to the ED of a tertiary cancer centre for uncontrolled pain. Risk for depression was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), excluding the somatic symptoms. Survival was calculated from date of ED visit to date of death/last follow-up. Results The CES-D was completed by 197 of 209 participants (94.3%); of these, 81 of 197 (41.1%) had high risk for depression (CES-D ≥10). The mean survival time for the entire sample was 318 days (SD=33), with 84 deaths. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling showed that risk for depression and disease stage (CES-D ≥10: HR=1.75, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.78, p=0.016; disease stage: HR=2.52, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.30, p Conclusions Risk for depression was prevalent and associated with survival outcomes in patients with cancer presenting to the ED with uncontrolled pain. Screening for risk for depression in the ED may identify patients who need referral for clinical assessment of depression. Diagnosis and adequate treatment could improve health outcomes and survival rates for these patients.

Background Hospitalization and early anticoagulation therapy remain standard care for patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with pulmonary embolism (PE). For PEs discovered incidentally, however, optimal therapeutic strategies are less clear—and all the more so when the patient has cancer, which is associated with a hypercoagulable state that exacerbates the threat of PE. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of a historical cohort of patients with cancer and incidental PE who were referred for assessment to the ED in an institution whose standard of care is outpatient treatment of selected patients and use of low-molecular-weight heparin for anticoagulation. Eligible patients had received a diagnosis of incidental PE upon routine contrast enhanced chest CT for cancer staging. Survival data was collected at 30 days and 90 days from the date of ED presentation and at the end of the study. Results We identified 193 patients, 135 (70%) of whom were discharged and 58 (30%) of whom were admitted to the hospital. The 30-day survival rate was 92% overall, 99% for the discharged patients and 76% for admitted patients. Almost all (189 patients, 98%) commenced anticoagulation therapy in the ED; 170 (90%) of these received low-molecular-weight heparin. Patients with saddle pulmonary artery incidental PEs were more likely to die within 30 days (43%) than were those with main or lobar (11%), segmental (6%), or subsegmental (5%) incidental PEs. In multivariate analysis, Charlson comorbidity index (age unadjusted), hypoxemia, and incidental PE location (P = 0.004, relative risk 33.5 (95% CI 3.1–357.4, comparing saddle versus subsegmental PE) were significantly associated with 30-day survival. Age, comorbidity, race, cancer stage, tachycardia, hypoxemia, and incidental PE location were significantly associated with hospital admission. Conclusions Selected cancer patients presenting to the ED with incidental PE can be treated with low-molecular-weight heparin anticoagulation and safely discharged. Avoidance of unnecessary hospitalization may decrease in-hospital infections and death, reduce healthcare costs, and improve patient quality of life. Because the natural history and optimal management of this condition is not well described, information supporting the creation of straightforward evidence-based practice guidelines for ED teams treating this specialized patient population is needed.

Pain is highly prevalent in health care settings; however, disparities continue to exist in pain care treatment. Few studies have investigated if differences exist based on patient-related characteristics associated with aging. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in acute pain care for older vs younger patients. This was a multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional observation study of 5 emergency departments across the United States evaluating the 2 most commonly presenting pain conditions for older adults, abdominal and fracture pain. Multivariable adjusted hierarchical modeling was completed. A total of 6,948 visits were reviewed. Older (⩾ 65 years) and oldest (⩾ 85 years) were less likely to receive analgesics compared to younger patients (

Suicide and other self-directed violence deaths are likely grossly underestimated, reflecting inappropriate classification of many drug intoxication deaths as accidents or unintentional and heterogeneous ascertainment and coding practices across states. As the tide of prescription and illicit drug-poisoning deaths is rising, public health and research needs would be better satisfied by considering most of these deaths a result of self-intoxication. Epidemiologists and prevention scientists could design better intervention strategies by focusing on premorbid behavior. We propose incorporating deaths from drug self-intoxication and investigations of all poisoning deaths into the National Violent Death Reporting System, which contains misclassified homicides and undetermined intent deaths, to facilitate efforts to comprehend and reverse the surging rate of drug intoxication fatalities.

Survival outcomes in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) vary by extent of disease, behavioral factors, and socioeconomic factors. We assessed the extent to which pretreatment pain influences survival in 2,340 newly diagnosed patients with HNSCC, adjusting for disease stage, symptoms, pain medications, comorbidities, smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Patients rated their pain at presentation to the cancer center (0 = "no pain" and 10 = "pain as bad as you can imagine"). Survival time was calculated from the date of diagnosis to the date of death of any cause or last follow-up. Five-year overall survival was calculated for all the variables assessed in the study. Severe pain (≥7) was most prevalent among those with oral cancer (20.4%; pharynx = 18.8%; larynx = 16.1%) and significantly varied by tumor stage, fatigue severity, smoking status, comorbid lung disease, and race (all P .05) across cancer diagnoses. Overall 5-year survival varied by pain for oral (severe pain = 31% vs nonsevere pain = 52%; P .001) and pharyngeal cancer (severe pain = 33% vs nonsevere pain = 53%; P .001). Multivariable analyses showed that pain persisted as an independent prognostic factor for survival. Pain reported prior to treatment should be considered in understanding survival outcomes in HNSCC patients.Pretreatment pain was an independent predictor of survival in a large sample of HNSCC patients even after accounting for tumor node metastasis stage, fatigue, age, race/ethnicity, smoking, and alcohol intake. Therefore, symptoms at presentation and before cancer treatment are important factors to be considered in understanding survival outcomes in HNSCC patients.

The management of acute traumatic pain is a crucial component of prehospital care and yet the assessment and administration of analgesia is highly variable, frequently suboptimal, and often determined by consensus-based regional protocols.To develop an evidence-based guideline (EBG) for the clinical management of acute traumatic pain in adults and children by advanced life support (ALS) providers in the prehospital setting. Methods. We recruited a multi-stakeholder panel with expertise in acute pain management, guideline development, health informatics, and emergency medical services (EMS) outcomes research. Representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (sponsoring agency) and a major children's research center (investigative team) also contributed to the process. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to guide the process of question formulation, evidence retrieval, appraisal/synthesis, and formulation of recommendations. The process also adhered to the National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline (EBG) model process approved by the Federal Interagency Council for EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council.Four strong and three weak recommendations emerged from the process; two of the strong recommendations were linked to high- and moderate-quality evidence, respectively. The panel recommended that all patients be considered candidates for analgesia, regardless of transport interval, and that opioid medications should be considered for patients in moderate to severe pain. The panel also recommended that all patients should be reassessed at frequent intervals using a standardized pain scale and that patients should be re-dosed if pain persists. The panel suggested the use of specific age-appropriate pain scales.GRADE methodology was used to develop an evidence-based guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma. The panel issued four strong recommendations regarding patient assessment and narcotic medication dosing. Future research should define optimal approaches for implementation of the guideline as well as the impact of the protocol on safety and effectiveness metrics.

Emergency medical service (EMS) is frequently called to care for a seriously ill patient with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness. The seriously ill include both the acutely injured patients (for example in mass casualty events) and those who suffer from advanced stages of a chronic disease (for example severe malignant pain). EMS therefore plays an important role in delivering realistic, appropriate, and timely care that is consistent with the patient's wishes and in treating distressing symptoms in those who are seriously ill. The purpose of this article is to; 1) review four case scenarios that relate to palliative care and may be commonly encountered in the out-of-hospital setting and 2) provide a road map by suggesting four things to do to start an EMS-palliative care initiative in order to optimize out-of-hospital care of the seriously ill and increase preparedness of EMS providers in these difficult situations. Key Words: Collaboration; emergency medical service; integration; out of...

On January 10, 2013, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a set of recommendations intended to guide opioid analgesic prescribing in New York City emergency departments. The intent and scope of these guidelines are discussed through an interview by an emergency medicine fellow with an expert in emergency medicine pain management and one of the authors of the guidelines. The guidelines are appended to the commentary.

The current epidemic of opioid toxicity and deaths has led clinicians and policy-makers to explore alternatives to opioids for management of moderate to severe pain. One environment in which opioid use has been questioned is the emergency department (ED). This commentary addresses the proposal for “opioid-free EDs” and discusses the risk-to-benefit ratios of opioid and alternative pharmacotherapy for acutely injured patients requiring analgesia. The authors recognize that a truly opioid-free ED is not practical and that alternative analgesic approaches also carry risks. Innovations in managing pain in the ED are needed. But excessive restriction on opioid pharmacotherapy in emergency medicine carries the risk of replacing overprescribing with underprescribing of opioids. The commentary supports the need to establish a core of evidence to support efforts to increase the use of nonopioid and nonpharmacologic modalities for those suffering from pain.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduled hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) in an attempt to mitigate the prescription opioid epidemic. Many in the medical and pharmacy community expressed concerns of unintended consequences as a result of rescheduling.This study examined physicians' intentions to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling using the framework of the theory of reasoned action (TRA).A cover letter containing a link to the online questionnaire was sent to physicians of the Texas Medical Association who were likely to prescribe opioids. The questionnaire assessed physicians' intentions to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling. Predictor variables included attitude toward rescheduling, subjective norm toward HCP prescribing, and past prescribing behavior of schedule II prescriptions. All variables were measured on a 7-point, Likert-type scale. Intention to prescribe as a dependent variable was regressed over TRA variables and respondent characteristics.A total of 1176 usable responses were obtained, yielding a response rate of 13.3%. Mean (M) age was 53.07 ± 11 and most respondents were male (70%) and Caucasian (75%). Physicians held a moderately positive intention to prescribe HCPs (M = 4.36 ± 2.08), held a moderately negative attitude towards rescheduling, M = 4.68 ± 1.51 (reverse coded). Subjective norm was moderately low, M = 3.06 ± 1.78, and past prescribing behavior M = 2.43 ± 1.21. The linear regression analysis indicated that attitude (β = 0.10; P = 0.006), subjective norm (β = 0.35; P 0.0001) and past prescribing behavior (β = 0.59; P 0.0001) were significant predictors of intention to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling.TRA was shown to be a predictive model of physicians' intentions to prescribe HCPs after rescheduling. Overall, physicians held a moderately positive intention to prescribe HCPs. Past behavior concerning schedule II prescribing was found to be the most significant predictor of intention. Understanding the impact of federal rule changes on pain management care and patient satisfaction is necessary to determine whether this change has produced the intended consequences without harming patients in need of HCPs.

Objective:Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center.Method:We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids.Results:The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p= 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p= 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p= 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home.Significance of Results:Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

Although visiting the emergency departments (EDs) is considered poor quality of cancer care, there are indications these visits are increasing. Similarly, there is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) to cancer patients in EDs. However, this integration is not without major challenges. In this article, we review the literature on why cancer patients visit EDs, the rates of hospitalization and mortality for these patients, and the models for integrating PC in EDs. We discuss opportunities such integration will bring to the quality of cancer care, and resource utilization of resources. We also discuss barriers faced by this integration. We found that the most common reasons for ED visits by cancer patients are pain, fever, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of the patients are admitted to hospitals, about 13% of the admitted patients die during hospitalization, and some patients die in ED. Patients who receive PC at an ED have shorter hospitalization and lower resource utilization. Models based solely on increasing PC provision in EDs by PC specialists have had modest success, while very limited ED-based PC provision has had slightly higher impact. However, details of these programs are lacking, and coordination between ED based PC and hospital-wide PC is not clear. In some studies, the objectives were to improve care in the communities and reduce ED visits and hospitalizations. We conclude that as more patients receive cancer therapy late in their disease trajectory, more cancer patients will visit EDs. Integration of PC with emergency medicine will require active participation of ED physicians in providing PC to cancer patients. PC specialist should play an active role in educating ED physicians about PC, and provide timely consultations. The impact of integrating PC in EDs on quality and cost of cancer care should be studied.

Objectives. We have described national trends for the 5 leading external causes of injury mortality. Methods. We used negative binomial regression and annual underlying cause-of-death data for US residents for 2000 through 2009. Results. Mortality rates for unintentional poisoning, unintentional falls, and suicide increased by 128%, 71%, and 15%, respectively. The unintentional motor vehicle traffic crash mortality rate declined 25%. Suicide ranked first as a cause of injury mortality, followed by motor vehicle traffic crashes, poisoning, falls, and homicide. Females had a lower injury mortality rate than did males. The adjusted fall mortality rate displayed a positive age gradient. Blacks and Hispanics had lower adjusted motor vehicle traffic crash and suicide mortality rates and higher adjusted homicide rates than did Whites, and a lower unadjusted total injury mortality rate. Conclusions. Mortality rates for suicide, poisoning, and falls rose substantially over the past decade. Suicide has surpassed motor vehicle traffic crashes as the leading cause of injury mortality. Comprehensive traffic safety measures have successfully reduced the national motor vehicle traffic crash mortality rate. Similar efforts will be required to diminish the burden of other injury.

The effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on equitable care is the least studied of the domains of quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Inequities in access and treatment throughout the health care system are well documented in all fields of medicine. While there is little evidence demonstrating that inequity is worsened by crowding, theory and evidence from social science disciplines, as well as known barriers to care for vulnerable populations, would suggest that crowding will worsen inequities. To design successful interventions, however, it is important to first understand how crowding can result in disparities and base interventions on these mechanisms. A research agenda is proposed to understand mechanisms that may threaten equity during periods of crowding and design and test potential interventions that may ensure the equitable aspect of quality of care.

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:848–858 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Abstract Objectives: A decision support tool may guide emergency clinicians in recognizing assessment, analgesic and overall management, and health service delivery needs for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to identify data and process elements important in making decisions regarding evaluation and management of adult patients in the ED with painful episodes of SCD. Methods: Qualitative methods using a series of focus groups and grounded theory were used. Eligible participants included adult clients with SCD and emergency physicians and nurses with a minimum of 1 year of experience providing care to patients with SCD in the ED. Patients were recruited in conjunction with annual SCD meetings, and providers included clinicians who were and were not affiliated with sickle cell centers. Groups were conducted until saturation was reached and included a total of two patient groups, three physician groups, and two nurse groups. Focus groups were held in New York, Durham, Chicago, New Orleans, and Denver. Clinician participants were asked the following three questions to guide the discussion: 1) what information would be important to know about patients with SCD in the ED setting to effectively care for them and help you identify patient analgesic, treatment, and referral needs? 2) What treatment decisions would you make with this information? and 3) What characteristics would a decision support tool need to have to make it meaningful and useful? Client participants were asked the same questions with rewording to reflect what they believed providers should know to provide the best care and what they should do with the information. All focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed. The constant comparative method was used to analyze the data. Two coders independently coded participant responses and identified focal themes based on the key questions. An investigator and assistant independently reviewed the transcripts and met until the final coding structure was determined. Results: Forty-seven individuals participated (14 persons with SCD, 16 physicians, and 17 nurses) in a total of seven different groups. Two major themes emerged: acute management and health care utilization. Major subthemes included the following: physiologic findings, diagnostics, assessment and treatment of acute painful episodes, and disposition. The most common minor subthemes that emerged included past medical history, presence of a medical home (physician or clinic), individualized analgesic treatment plan for treatment of painful episodes, history of present illness, medical home follow-up available, patient-reported analgesic treatment that works, and availability of analgesic prescription at discharge. Additional important elements in treatment of acute pain episodes included the use of a standard analgesic protocol, need for fluids and nonpharmacologic interventions, and the assessment of typicality of pain presentation. The patients’ interpretation of the need for hospital admission also ranked high. Conclusions: Participants identified several areas that are important in the assessment, management, and disposition decisions that may help guide best practices for SCD patients in the ED setting.

This study investigated the association between effectiveness of ED pain treatment and race of patients, race of providers, and the concordance of patient and provider race, with a prospective, multicenter study of patients presenting to 1 of 20 US and Canadian EDs with moderate to severe pain. Primary outcome is a 2-point or greater reduction in pain intensity, measured with an 11-point verbal scale, considered the minimum clinically important reduction in pain intensity. A total of 776 patients were enrolled. The sample included 57% female, 44% white, 26% black, and 26% Hispanic. The physician was white in 85% of encounters. Arrival pain score (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI 1.06, 1.24), receipt of any ED analgesia (1.59; 95% CI 1.17, 2.17), and physician nonwhite race (1.68; 95% CI 1.10, 2.55) were significant predictors of clinically significant reduction in pain intensity in multivariate analysis. Nonwhite physicians achieved better pain control without using more analgesics. Future research should explore the determinants of this difference in patient response to pain treatment related to provider race including provider characteristics and training that were not measured in this study. This study provided no evidence supporting an effect of racial concordance on the primary outcome. Perspective This article presents analysis of predictors of clinically important reduction in pain intensity among emergency department patients, finding nonwhite physicians achieving better pain relief with less analgesia. This finding should encourage researchers to investigate elements of the therapeutic relationship that may be enhanced to achieve better pain relief for patients.

Objective. Pain is a complex experience influenced by factors such as age, race, and ethnicity. We conducted a multicenter study to better understand emergency department (ED) pain management practices and examined the influence of patient and provider gender on analgesic administration. Design. Prospective, multicenter, observational study. Setting. Consecutive patients, ≥8-years-old, presenting with complaints of moderate to severe pain (pain numerical rating scale [NRS] > 3) at 16 U.S. and three Canadian hospitals. Outcomes Measures. Receipt of any ED analgesic, receipt of opioids, and adequate pain relief in the ED. Results. Eight hundred forty-two patients participated including 56% women. Baseline pain scores were similar in both genders. Analgesic administration rates were not significantly different for female and male patients (63% vs 57%, P = 0.08), although females presenting with severe pain (NRS ≥8) were more likely to receive analgesics (74% vs 64%, P = 0.02). Female physicians were more likely to administer analgesics than male physicians (66% vs 57%, P = 0.009). In logistic regression models, predictors of ED analgesic administration were male physician (odds ratio [OR] = 0.7), arrival pain (OR = 1.3), number of pain assessments (OR = 1.83), and charted follow-up plans (OR = 2.16). With regard to opioid administration, female physicians were more likely to prescribe opioids to females ( P = 0.006) while male physicians were more likely to prescribe to males ( P = 0.05). In logistic regression models, predictors of opioids administration included male patient gender (OR = 0.58), male patient–physician interaction (OR = 2.58), arrival pain score (OR = 1.28), average pain score (OR = 1.10), and number of pain assessments (OR = 1.5). Pain relief was not impacted by gender. Conclusion. Provider gender as opposed to patient gender appears to influence pain management decisions in the ED.

INTRODUCTION In what has become a near-weekly ritual, one of us (K.H.T.) receives an emotionally laden call about the plight of a loved one, colleague, or acquaintance with cancer who needs our help to navigate the labyrinth of emergency care. The patient may receive care at our comprehensive cancer center but become “stranded” in an emergency department (ED) outside the often rigid borders between our center and other health care systems. They may be only a few blocks away, or in another town, state, or country. Usually, after a flurry of calls or e-mails, the patient is accepted into one of our clinics. At times, the patient must sign out against medical advice to come directly to our ED. These exercises often end with the caller’s tremendous expressions of gratitude, thanking us for being “miracle workers.” However, it shouldn’t take a miracle to communicate and deliver high-quality patient-centered care in the ED. Every year, between 1 and 3 million US ED visits are related to cancer. The visits may be the index presentation leading to an eventual cancer diagnosis. More commonly, such visits are prompted by symptoms resulting from cancer progression, treatment toxicities, or complications of surgery. These visits weigh heavy on our patients and often portend a worsening prognosis. Because cancer is commonly a disease of aging, US EDs should expect to see increasing numbers of cancer patients and survivors as the population ages. Given projected shortages of cancer care providers, it is increasingly important for the emergency care community to better understand and expertly manage cancer emergencies. To fulfill the Triple Aim (improved patient experience, improved population health, and reduced health care costs) and effectively manage limited resources, we must foster transparent communication and collaboration between emergency physicians and the multiple professionals who participate in cancer care and research. It is vital that

Pain is the most common reason for emergency department (ED) use, and oligoanalgesia in this setting is known to be common. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has revised standards for pain management; however, the impact of these regulatory changes on ED pain management practice is unknown. This prospective, multicenter study assessed the current state of ED pain management practice. After informed consent, patients aged 8 years and older with presenting pain intensity scores of 4 or greater on an 11-point numerical rating scale completed structured interviews, and their medical records were abstracted. Eight hundred forty-two patients at 20 US and Canadian hospitals participated. On arrival, pain intensity was severe (median, 8/10). Pain assessments were noted in 83% of cases; however, reassessments were uncommon. Only 60% of patients received analgesics that were administered after lengthy delays (median, 90 minutes; range, 0 to 962 minutes), and 74% of patients were discharged in moderate to severe pain. Of patients not receiving analgesics, 42% desired them; however, only 31% of these patients voiced such requests. We conclude that ED pain intensity is high, analgesics are underutilized, and delays to treatment are common. Despite efforts to improve pain management practice, oligoanalgesia remains a problem for emergency medicine. Perspective Despite the frequency of pain in the emergency department, few studies have examined this phenomenon. This study documents high pain intensity and suboptimal pain management practices in a large multicenter ED network in the United States and Canada. These findings suggest that there is much room for improvement in this area.

Objectives Patient compliance and satisfaction with analgesics prescribed after emergency department (ED) care for acute pain are poorly understood, largely because of the lack of direct patient follow-up with the ED provider. Our objective was to compare patient satisfaction with three analgesia regimens prescribed for post-ED care—a nasally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an opioid, or combination therapy—by collecting granular follow-up on analgesic use, pain scores, side effects, work activity levels, and overall satisfaction directly from patients. Methods We designed a prospective registry linking ED assessment and analgesic management for acute pain of specific musculoskeletal or visceral etiologies with self-reported automated telephonic follow-up daily for the 4 days post-ED discharge. Patients were prescribed a specific NSAID (SPRIX, ketorolac tromethamine for nasal instillation) only, an oral opioid only, or both with the opioid clearly defined as rescue therapy, at the ED provider's discretion. Results There were 824 evaluable subjects. Maximum pain scores improved day to day more effectively with a ketorolac-based approach. Self-reported rates of return to work and work effectiveness were higher with SPRIX than with opioids or combination therapy. Adverse effects of nausea, constipation, drowsiness, and abdominal pain were higher each day among patients taking an opioid; nasal irritation was more common with SPRIX. Overall satisfaction at the end of the follow-up period was higher with SPRIX-based treatment than with opioid monotherapy. Conclusions Automated telephonic follow-up of ED patients prescribed short-term analgesia is feasible. Ketorolac-based analgesia after an ED visit for many acute pain syndromes was associated with favorable patient outcomes and higher satisfaction than opioid-based therapy. SPRIX, an NSAID that is not available over the counter and has a novel delivery approach, may be useful for short-term post-ED outpatient analgesia.

OBJECTIVES: One of the most challenging areas of emergency medicine practice is the management and treatment of severe and persistent pain, including cancer-related pain. Emergency departments (EDs) in the United States frequently provide care for patients with cancer and an increasing concern is the potential for opioid misuse in this patient group. The authors determined the risk for opioid misuse among ED cancer patients with pain and assessed demographic and clinical factors associated with increased misuse risk. The Texas state prescription monitoring program was also queried for evidence of multiple opioid prescriptions for comparing low- and high-risk groups. METHODS: The Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R) was administered to assess risk for opioid misuse among cancer patients presenting to the ED of a comprehensive cancer center in the United States. Eligibility criteria included: 1) presentation for treatment of chronic cancer-related pain while taking a prescribed schedule II opioid for analgesia, 2) age of 18 years or older, 3) ability to speak English, and 4) ability to understand the study and give written informed consent. RESULTS: Of 934 ED patients screened for the study, 290 were eligible and 209 participated (72% response rate). On the basis of the recommended SOAPP-R cutoff score of 18, a total of 71 of the 209 patients (34%) were categorized as having a high risk of misuse. Of note, 15% and 4% of all patients reported past or current use of illicit substances, respectively. The total number of annual opioid prescriptions (17.8 vs. 12.6; p = 0.023) differed between the high- versus low-risk groups. Multivariable analyses showed that depression (odds ratio [OR] = 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45 to 6.48; p = 0.003), poor coping (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.13; p = 0.001), and illicit substance use (OR = 28.30, 95% CI = 2.97 to 269.24; p = 0.029) were significantly associated with high risk of opioid misuse. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of opioid misuse among cancer patients is substantial. Screening for opioid misuse in the ED is feasible. Language: en

Background Effective, appropriate, and safe opioid analgesia administration in the Emergency Department (ED) is a complex issue, with risks of both over- and underutilization of medications. Objective To assess for possible association between practitioner status (physician [MD] vs. mid-level provider [MLP]) and use of opioids for in-ED treatment of musculoskeletal pain (MSP). Methods This was a secondary, hypothesis-generating analysis of a subset of subjects who had ED analgesia noted as part of entry into a prospective registry trial of outpatient analgesia. The study was conducted at 12 U.S. academic EDs, 10 of which utilized MLPs. Patients were enrolled as a convenience sample from September 2012 through February 2014. Study patients were adults (>17 years of age) with acute MSP and eligibility for both nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and opioids at ED discharge. The intervention of interest was whether patients received opioid therapy in the ED prior to discharge. Results MDs were significantly more likely to order opioids than MLPs for ED patients with MSP. The association between MD/MLP status and likelihood of treatment with opioids was similar in both classical logistic regression (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–4.5, p = 0.019) and in propensity-adjusted modeling (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.0–4.5, p = 0.049). Conclusions In preliminary analysis, MD/MLP status was significantly associated with likelihood of provider treatment of MSP with opioids. A follow-up study is warranted to confirm the results of this hypothesis-testing analysis and to inform efforts toward consistency in opioid therapy in the ED.

Objectives: The lack of epidemiological studies has made it difficult to assess the extent of public health problems in North Korea. In the absence of empirical data, less intrusive study designs acceptable to the North Korean government could be developed to gauge the public's health. To this end we developed a basic oral health survey in order to assess the prevalence of untreated dental caries among children. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 854 elementary school students was conducted in the city of Wonsan, North Korea. Students were screened and classified into one of three states of oral health: no caries, minor caries or severe dental caries. Verbal surveys were concurrently administered on children to collect basic information on oral health behaviours and demographic characteristics. Statistical analyses were performed to determine if any variables were significant predictors of oral health status category. Results: Among the 854 students screened, we found 255 students with no caries (29.9%), 316 students with minor caries (37.0%), and 283 students with severe caries (33.1%). The majority of students (70.1%) screened had dental caries. Almost all of the students (98.5%) claimed to brush their teeth daily and 71.2% of students visited a dentist in the past year. There were no significant predictors of oral health status. Conclusions: The oral health of children in Wonsan, North Korea is comparable if not slightly better than the oral health status of children of similar age in countries with similar Social-Economic Status (SES). Basic oral health screens are useful to produce a snapshot of general oral health status among children in North Korea and may provide insight as to the general health of these children.

Each patient's pain experience is uniquely his or her own. Standardized pain assessment methodologies and procedures provide a window to this experience and constitute a necessary first step to our understanding of pain, in both clinical and research settings. All too often, emergency department pain assessment is cursory--performed more to satisfy regulatory requirements than to guide our therapies or evaluate our practices. This article provides information on a number of assessment techniques that are appropriate for clinical and research use. Their use should inform our practice and lead to continuous improvements in our management of pain.

A number of emergency department studies have corroborated findings from mortality and hospital admission studies regarding an association of ambient air pollution and respiratory outcomes. More refined assessment has been limited by study size and available air quality data.Measurements of 5 pollutants (particulate matter [PM10], ozone, nitrogen dioxide [NO2], carbon monoxide [CO], and sulfur dioxide [SO2]) were available for the entire study period (1 January 1993 to 31 August 2000); detailed measurements of particulate matter were available for 25 months. We obtained data on 4 million emergency department visits from 31 hospitals in Atlanta. Visits for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, upper respiratory infection, and pneumonia were assessed in relation to air pollutants using Poisson generalized estimating equations.In single-pollutant models examining 3-day moving averages of pollutants (lags 0, 1, and 2): standard deviation increases of ozone, NO2, CO, and PM10 were associated with 1-3% increases in URI visits; a 2 microg/m increase of PM2.5 organic carbon was associated with a 3% increase in pneumonia visits; and standard deviation increases of NO2 and CO were associated with 2-3% increases in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease visits. Positive associations persisted beyond 3 days for several of the outcomes, and over a week for asthma.The results of this study contribute to the evidence of an association of several correlated gaseous and particulate pollutants, including ozone, NO2, CO, PM, and organic carbon, with specific respiratory conditions.

761 Pain is the single most common reason patients seek care in the emergency department.1 Given the prevalence of pain as a presenting complaint, one might expect emergency physicians to assign its treatment a high priority; however, pain is often seemingly invisible to the emergency physician. Multiple research studies have documented that the undertreatment of pain, or oligoanalgesia, is a frequent occurrence.2 Pain that is not acknowledged and managed appropriately causes dissatisfaction with medical care, hostility toward the physician, unscheduled returns to the emergency department, delayed return to full function, and potentially, an increased risk of litigation. Failure to recognize and treat pain may result in anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, increased oxygen demands with the potential for end organ ischemia, and decreased movement with an increased risk of venous thrombosis. Given this state affairs, we should examine the barriers that serve to block the adequate recognition and treatment of pain in emergency departments, as well as other healthcare delivery settings. One of these barriers is the physician’s fear of being “duped” by patients who fabricate pain symptoms in order to obtain controlled substances for recreational use or diversion. This article will focus on the problem of substance abuse, and the perceptions of healthcare providers regarding substance abuse, as they relate to patients who present to the emergency department with complaints of pain.

Patients presenting to the emergency department with heart failure are evaluated based on the subjective sensation of dyspnea. In this study, the authors sought to determine the change in dyspnea, measured by a visual analog scale (VAS), which is associated with a meaningful change in the patient's perception and the effect of dyspnea severity on the VAS. In this prospective, observational study the authors defined a meaningful change in VAS dyspnea as the difference between VAS scores when patients reported "a little less difficulty breathing" or "a little more difficulty breathing." Seventy-four patients were evaluated, and the mean for a meaningful change in VAS was 21.1 mm (95% confidence interval, 12.3-29.9 mm). Patients that recorded higher index VAS scores had a significantly greater change in VAS. VAS scores and the changes with treatment provide the treating physician with another means to assess the effects of their interventions.

Background Despite evidence supporting an association between ambient air pollutants and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the roles of the physicochemical components of particulate matter (PM) and copollutants are not fully understood. This time-series study examined the relation between ambient air pollution and cardiovascular conditions using ambient air quality data and emergency department visit data in Atlanta, Georgia, from January 1, 1993, to August 31, 2000. Methods Outcome data on 4,407,535 emergency department visits were compiled from 31 hospitals in Atlanta. The air quality data included measurements of criteria pollutants for the entire study period, as well as detailed measurements of mass concentrations for the fine and coarse fractions of PM and several physical and chemical characteristics of PM for the final 25 months of the study. Emergency department visits for CVD and for cardiovascular subgroups were assessed in relation to daily measures of air pollutants using Poisson generalized linear models controlling for long-term temporal trends and meteorologic conditions with cubic splines. Results Using an a priori 3-day moving average in single-pollutant models, CVD visits were associated with NO2, CO, PM2.5, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and oxygenated hydrocarbons. Secondary analyses suggested that these associations tended to be strongest with same-day pollution levels. Conclusions These findings provide evidence for an association between CVD visits and several correlated pollutants, including gases, PM2.5, and PM2.5 components.

Background Palliative sedation to treat severely distressing symptoms in those with a poor prognosis is well-accepted. Objective We discuss palliative sedation in the Emergency Department and the use of ketamine. Case Report We present the case of a patient with angioedema of the tongue and severe respiratory distress. The patient's nursing home was unable to control her symptoms and she was transferred to the Emergency Department. The patient received fentanyl 50 μg i.v. and ketamine 50 mg i.v. every 5 min until adequate palliative sedation was achieved. Conclusion Ketamine can be considered for Emergency Department palliative sedation in selected patients. Identifying and caring for unmet palliative care needs is an important skill for Emergency Medicine.

The Institute of Medicine's landmark report, "Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care," documents the pervasiveness of racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. health care delivery system, and provides several recommendations to address them. It is clear from research data, such as those demonstrating racial and ethnic disparities in emergency department (ED) pain management, that emergency medicine (EM) is not immune to this problem. The IOM authors describe two strategies that can reduce disparities in EM. First, workforce diversity is likely to result in a community of emergency physicians who are better prepared to understand, learn from, and collaborate with persons from other racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, whether these be patients, fellow clinicians, or the larger medical and scientific community. Given the ethical and practical advantages of a more diverse EM workforce, continued and expanded initiatives to increase diversity within EM should be undertaken. Second, the specialty's educational programs should produce emergency physicians with the skills and knowledge needed to serve an increasingly diverse population. This cultural competence should include an awareness of existing racial and ethnic health disparities, recognition of the risks of stereotyping and biased treatment, and knowledge of the incidence and prevalence of health conditions among diverse populations. Culturally competent emergency care providers also possess the skills to identify and manage racial and ethnic differences in health values, beliefs, and behaviors with the ultimate goal of delivering quality health services to all patients cared for in EDs.

CONTEXT: Pain has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality-of-life implications. Racial- and ethnic-based differences in the pain care experience have been described. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain when compared with non-Hispanic Whites. OBJECTIVES: To provide health care providers, researchers, health care policy analysts, government officials, patients, and the general public with pertinent evidence regarding differences in pain perception, assessment, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence is provided for racial- and ethnic-based differences in pain care across different types of pain (i.e., experimental pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain) and settings (i.e., emergency department). Pertinent literature on patient, health care provider, and health care system factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment are provided. EVIDENCE: A selective literature review was performed by experts in pain. The experts developed abstracts with relevant citations on racial and ethnic disparities within their specific areas of expertise. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The abstracts were compiled for this manuscript. The draft manuscript was made available to the experts for comment and review prior to submission for publication. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the Institute of Medicine's report on health care disparities, racial and ethnic disparities in pain perception, assessment, and treatment were found in all settings (i.e., postoperative, emergency room) and across all types of pain (i.e., acute, cancer, chronic nonmalignant, and experimental). The literature suggests that the sources of pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities are complex, involving patient (e.g., patient/health care provider communication, attitudes), health care provider (e.g., decision making), and health care system (e.g., access to pain medication) factors. There is a need for improved training for health care providers and educational interventions for patients. A comprehensive pain research agenda is necessary to address pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate ED documentation of patient pain in light of the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Healthcare Organization's emphasis on pain assessment and management. A prospectively designed pain management survey was offered to patients on ED discharge. Documentation of pain intensity by ED nurses and physicians was retrospectively reviewed. Of 302 patients surveyed, 261 (86%) complete charts were available for review. Initial pain assessments were noted on 94% of the charts, but a pain scale was used for only 23% of the patients. Documentation of pain subsequent to therapy was noted on 39% of the charts, but a pain scale was used only 19% of the time. Subsequent to therapy, nurses were 2.2 x more likely to document pain assessments than physicians (30% vs 16%, P

Background Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after cardiac arrest is utilized indiscriminately among unselected populations. Cancer patients have particularly low rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge after CPR. Our study determines rates of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge among cancer patients undergoing CPR in our cancer center. We examined whether these rates have changed over the past decade. Methods This IRB-approved retrospective observational study was conducted in our cancer center. The ED and cancer center provide medical care for ≥ 115,000 patients annually. Cases of CPR presenting to the cancer center for years 2003–2012 were identified using Institutional CPR and Administrative Data for Resuscitation and Billing databases. Age, gender, ethnicity, ROSC and Discharge Alive using a modified Utsein template was used to compare proportions achieving ROSC and survival to hospital discharge for two time periods: 2003–2007 (Group 1) and 2008–2012 (Group 2), using traditional Pearson chi-square statistics. Results One hundred twenty-six cancer center patients received CPR from 2003–2012. Group 1 (N = 64) and Group 2 (N = 62) were similar; age (60 vs. 60 years), gender (63% vs. 58% male), and race/ethnicity (67% vs. 56% White). Proportions achieving ROSC were similar in the two time periods (36% Group 1 vs. 45% Group 2, OR = 1.47, 95% CI 0.72 - 3.00) as was survival to hospital discharge (11% Group 1 vs. 10% Group 2, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.28 - 2.76). Conclusions ROSC after CPR in cancer patients and survival to hospital discharge did not change over time.