Prevalence and Predictors of Prehospital Pain Assessment and Analgesic Use in Military Trauma Patients, 2010-2013.

Introduction: Pain is the most common symptom in patients presenting for prehospital (PH) care. Research in civilian emergency medical systems has shown wide variability in PH pain assessment and analgesic practices, yet a minimal amount is known about pain assessment and analgesic intervention practices in the military, particularly when PH care is delivered in a combat zone.
Objective: To describe prehospital (PH) pain care practices for U.S. military personnel injured in Iraq and Afghanistan 2010-2013 and explore potential relationships to explain variation.
Methods: An exploratory retrospective, cross-sectional study of Department of Defense Trauma Registry data from 2010 to 2013 was performed. Demographic, clinical, or health system variables for associations with three outcomes: 1) pain assessment documentation; 2) pain severity (0-10 scale); and 3) analgesic administration (yes/no). Including only variables with significant associations, backward stepwise regression was used to develop explanatory models for each outcome.
Results: Patient records (n = 3,317) were evaluated for documentation of PH pain assessment and analgesic administration. The prevalence of PH pain score documentation was 37.8% (n = 1,253). Overall, the proportion of records with PH pain scores increased over time: 19.8% (2010), 35.1% (2011), 58.2% (2012), and 62.2% (2013). Severity of pain scores ranged 0-10; mean = 5.5 (SD = 3.1); median = 6 (IQR = 3-8). Analgesics were reported for 50.8% (n = 1,684), of whom 38.3% had a pain severity score documented. The pain assessment documentation model included any documented vital signs, injury year, and mechanism of injury and explained 19.3% of the variance in documentation. The pain severity model included vital signs and injury severity score (ISS) and explained 5.0% of the variance in severity. The analgesic model included any vital signs, pain severity, trauma type, mechanism of injury, ISS, and year.
Conclusions: Pain assessment and treatment documentation improved each year, but remain suboptimal. Available data yielded poor prediction of the outcomes of interest, emphasizing the importance of individual assessment. Analgesic effectiveness could not be evaluated.