Richard Body1, Ergul Kaide2, Sarah Kendal2, Bernard Foex3. 1. Central Manchester University Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Central Manchester University Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Provision of prompt, effective analgesia is rightly considered as a standard of care in the emergency department (ED). However, much suffering is not 'painful' and may be under-recognised. We sought to describe the burden of suffering in the ED and explore how this may be best addressed from a patient centred perspective. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we included undifferentiated patients presenting to the ED. We undertook two face to face questionnaires with the first immediately following triage. We asked patients: (a) if they were 'suffering'; (b) how they were suffering; and (c) what they hoped would be done to ease this. Prior to leaving the ED, we asked patients what had been done to ease their suffering. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of 125 patients included, 77 (61.6%) reported suffering on direct questioning and 92 (73.6%) listed at least one way in which they were suffering. 90 (72.0%) patients had a pain score >0/10 but only 37 (29.6%) reported that pain was causing suffering. Patients reported suffering from both physical symptoms (especially pain, nausea, vomiting and dizziness) and emotional distress (notably anxiety). Treatment (to ease physical and emotional symptoms), information (particularly diagnosis, reassurance and explanation), care (notably friendly staff) and closure (being seen, resolving the problem and going home) were the key themes identified as important for relief of suffering. CONCLUSIONS: In seeking to ease suffering in the ED, clinicians must focus not only on providing analgesia but on treating Emotional distress, Physical symptoms, providing Information, Care and Closure (EPICC). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Provision of prompt, effective analgesia is rightly considered as a standard of care in the emergency department (ED). However, much suffering is not 'painful' and may be under-recognised. We sought to describe the burden of suffering in the ED and explore how this may be best addressed from a patient centred perspective. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we included undifferentiated patients presenting to the ED. We undertook two face to face questionnaires with the first immediately following triage. We asked patients: (a) if they were 'suffering'; (b) how they were suffering; and (c) what they hoped would be done to ease this. Prior to leaving the ED, we asked patients what had been done to ease their suffering. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Of 125 patients included, 77 (61.6%) reported suffering on direct questioning and 92 (73.6%) listed at least one way in which they were suffering. 90 (72.0%) patients had a pain score >0/10 but only 37 (29.6%) reported that pain was causing suffering. Patients reported suffering from both physical symptoms (especially pain, nausea, vomiting and dizziness) and emotional distress (notably anxiety). Treatment (to ease physical and emotional symptoms), information (particularly diagnosis, reassurance and explanation), care (notably friendly staff) and closure (being seen, resolving the problem and going home) were the key themes identified as important for relief of suffering. CONCLUSIONS: In seeking to ease suffering in the ED, clinicians must focus not only on providing analgesia but on treating Emotional distress, Physical symptoms, providing Information, Care and Closure (EPICC). Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical assessment, effectiveness; communications; patient support; psychology, patient support
Authors: Kristin L Rising; Rhea E Powell; Kenzie A Cameron; David H Salzman; Dimitrios Papanagnou; Amanda M B Doty; Lori Latimer; Katherine Piserchia; William C McGaghie; Danielle M McCarthy Journal: Acad Med Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Marjolein N T Kremers; Tessel Zaalberg; Eva S van den Ende; Marlou van Beneden; Frits Holleman; Prabath W B Nanayakkara; Harm R Haak Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2019-09-29
Authors: Amy V Ferry; Fiona E Strachan; Stacey D Stewart; Lucy Marshall; Kuan K Lee; Atul Anand; Anoop S V Shah; Andrew R Chapman; Nicholas L Mills; Sarah Cunningham-Burley Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Christina Østervang; Annmarie Touborg Lassen; Katrine Øelund; Elisabeth Coyne; Karin Brochstedt Dieperink; Charlotte Myhre Jensen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ben Carey; Colleen Anne Dell; James Stempien; Susan Tupper; Betty Rohr; Eloise Carr; Maria Cruz; Sharon Acoose; Peter Butt; Lindsey Broberg; Lisa Collard; Logan Fele-Slaferek; Cathie Fornssler; Donna Goodridge; Janet Gunderson; Holly McKenzie; Joe Rubin; Jason Shand; Jane Smith; Jason Trask; Kerry Ukrainetz; Simona Meier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.752