OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of prehospital pain measurement among patients 13 years of age or older using a verbal and numeric rating scale and to assess the severity of pain in a prehospital patient population. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of emergency medical services (EMS) run sheets after the adoption of a universal prehospital pain assessment protocol. Data were abstracted from a sequential (1:4) sample of run sheets from the first three months after adoption of the protocol. Verbal rating scale (VRS) and numeric rating scale (NRS) pain assessment information was obtained, along with demographic, location, and call information. Run sheets without pain assessment underwent structured review and classification according to predefined protocol. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,227 run sheets were reviewed, 582 (47%) of patients were male, and 452 (36%) were 65 years of age or older. A total of 907 (75%) were nontrauma transports and 27 (2%) were unconscious. Among conscious patients, pain was assessed using the protocol in 1,002 of 1,200 (84% [range, 81%-86%]). Among patients reporting pain, 104 of 518 (20% [range, 17%-24%] completed a VRS but not an NRS. The greatest risk factor for no pain assessment was altered mental status (39% of patients not assessed). Forty-eight percent (23 of 48) of patients with altered mental status reporting pain completed a VRS only. Thirty-one percent (range, 28%-34%) of all patients in the sample reported moderate or severe pain. CONCLUSION: Prehospital pain assessment using a VRS and NRS was feasible in this patient population. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding in other settings. Moderate or severe pain was present in approximately 31% of patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of prehospital pain measurement among patients 13 years of age or older using a verbal and numeric rating scale and to assess the severity of pain in a prehospital patient population. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of emergency medical services (EMS) run sheets after the adoption of a universal prehospital pain assessment protocol. Data were abstracted from a sequential (1:4) sample of run sheets from the first three months after adoption of the protocol. Verbal rating scale (VRS) and numeric rating scale (NRS) pain assessment information was obtained, along with demographic, location, and call information. Run sheets without pain assessment underwent structured review and classification according to predefined protocol. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,227 run sheets were reviewed, 582 (47%) of patients were male, and 452 (36%) were 65 years of age or older. A total of 907 (75%) were nontrauma transports and 27 (2%) were unconscious. Among conscious patients, pain was assessed using the protocol in 1,002 of 1,200 (84% [range, 81%-86%]). Among patients reporting pain, 104 of 518 (20% [range, 17%-24%] completed a VRS but not an NRS. The greatest risk factor for no pain assessment was altered mental status (39% of patients not assessed). Forty-eight percent (23 of 48) of patients with altered mental status reporting pain completed a VRS only. Thirty-one percent (range, 28%-34%) of all patients in the sample reported moderate or severe pain. CONCLUSION: Prehospital pain assessment using a VRS and NRS was feasible in this patient population. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding in other settings. Moderate or severe pain was present in approximately 31% of patients.
Authors: Ross J Fleischman; David G Frazer; Mohamud Daya; Jonathan Jui; Craig D Newgard Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2010 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Timothy F Platts-Mills; Katherine M Hunold; Mark A Weaver; Ryan M Dickey; Antonio R Fernandez; Roger B Fillingim; Charles B Cairns; Samuel A McLean Journal: J Pain Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Matthew C Mauck; Chloe E Barton; Andrew S Tungate; Jeffrey W Shupp; Rachel Karlnoski; David J Smith; Felicia N Williams; Samuel W Jones; Christopher Sefton; Kyle McGrath; Bruce A Cairns; Samuel A McLean Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Matthew C Mauck; Jennifer Smith; Jeffrey W Shupp; Mark A Weaver; Andrea Liu; Andrey V Bortsov; Bilal Lateef; Samuel W Jones; Felicia Williams; James Hwang; Rachel Karlnoski; David J Smith; Bruce A Cairns; Samuel A McLean Journal: Pain Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Matthew C Mauck; Chloe E Barton; Andrew Tungate; Jeffrey W Shupp; Rachel Karlnoski; David J Smith; Felicia N Williams; Samuel W Jones; Kyle V McGrath; Bruce A Cairns; Samuel A McLean Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 1.845