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, >or=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 >or=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.
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, >or=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 >or=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.
Authors: Cynthia I Campbell; Constance Weisner; Linda Leresche; G Thomas Ray; Kathleen Saunders; Mark D Sullivan; Caleb J Banta-Green; Joseph O Merrill; Michael J Silverberg; Denise Boudreau; Derek D Satre; Michael Von Korff Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Bradley T Kerridge; Tulshi D Saha; S Patricia Chou; Haitao Zhang; Jeesun Jung; W June Ruan; Sharon M Smith; Boji Huang; Deborah S Hasin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Mitchell Kim; Stephen J Kaplan; Steven H Mitchell; Medley Gatewood; Itay Bentov; Katherine A Bennett; Carol A Crawford; Paul R Sutton; Diane Matsuwaka; Mamatha Damodarasamy; May J Reed Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Katherine M Hunold; Mark R Sochor; Samuel A McLean; Kaitlyn B Mosteller; Antonio R Fernandez; Timothy F Platts-Mills Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2014-10-11
Authors: Ammar Siddiqui; Laura Belland; Laura Rivera-Reyes; Daniel Handel; Kabir Yadav; Kennon Heard; Amanda Eisenberg; Ula Hwang Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Timothy F Platts-Mills; Denise A Esserman; D Levin Brown; Andrey V Bortsov; Philip D Sloane; Samuel A McLean Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Chandrashekar Janakiram; Paul Fontelo; Vojtech Huser; Natalia I Chalmers; Gabriela Lopez Mitnik; Avery R Brow; Timothy J Iafolla; Bruce A Dye Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Tracy E Madsen; Samuel McLean; Wanting Zhai; Sarah Linnstaedt; Michael C Kurz; Robert Swor; Phyllis Hendry; David Peak; Christopher Lewandowski; Claire Pearson; Brian O'Neil; Elizabeth Datner; David Lee; Francesca Beaudoin Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 3.393