Patient-reported side effects and satisfaction of pre-hospital analgesia with low-dose esketamine: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Analgesia is a core intervention in emergency medicine. Pain is subjective, so patient-reported experience with pain and analgesia is essential for healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported side effects and satisfaction associated with pre-hospital analgesia with low-dose esketamine. Methods This is an observational cross-sectional study conducted as part of quality assurance measures of the German Red Cross Emergency Medical Service, Reutlingen, Germany. The survey was administered to all patients who received prehospital esketamine analgesia from paramedics. Addresses were obtained from medical records and mailed 10 days after the event. Patient feedback was anonymous and could not be linked to operational documentation. Results A total of 201 patients were contacted, and 119 responses were received via the online questionnaire and postal mail (response rate 59%). The mean age of the patients was 68±13 years, with 64.7% (n=77) being female. The main diagnosis reported was fractures of the extremities in 69.7%. Patients reported initial median pain intensity on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) of 10 [8-10]. Pain was unbearable for 96.3% of patients. After administration of analgesia, 95.3% were satisfied or very satisfied. Patients reported no side effects in 78.5%, minor side effects in 10.0%, significant but well tolerable side effects in 11.3%, borderline tolerable side effects in 0.2%, and no unbearable side effects. Borderline tolerable nausea was reported in 2% of patients along with dreams in 0.8%. No nightmares were reported. Further analysis showed that patients older than 80 years reported significantly more side effects (p < 0.001) and were thus less satisfied with the analgesia. Conclusions Both patient perception and analgesia with few side effects were important for both safety and satisfaction. In the present study, low-dose esketamine analgesia was associated with low side effects and high patient satisfaction

Development of an Adapted Model for Decision-Making to Improve Reasoning and Risk Assessment in an Emergency Team: A Prospective Simulation Study

Background and Objectives: Medical staff is rarely trained in structured decision-making, relying instead on intuition without due consideration for the associated pros and cons. Materials and Methods: We adopted a model for decision-making to improve reasoning and risk assessment and carried out a prospective simulation study using paramedic students in a three-year training program. We conducted a training session in which participants were lectured on decision-making using the FAR-BEK model (German abbreviation for facts, alternatives, risks, competence, decision, control), physiological processes in decision-making under stress, as well as medico-legal aspects for the comprehension and justification of medical decisions. We analyzed pre- and post-training scenarios to elucidate the influence of training on decision-making. Results: Twenty paramedic students, with a mean age of 22.0 &plusmn; 1.7 years, took part in the study. The question of whether decision aids can be applied, initially affirmed by 40% of participants, rose to 71.4% (p = 0.011) following our training. Confidence in decision-making increased on a 7-point Likert scale from 4.5 to 4.8 points (p &lt; 0.394). The reasoning behind the decisions rose from 5.3 to 5.6 points (p &lt; 0.081). Indication, options, and risks rose significantly, from 5.4 to 6.1 points (p = 0.045). Overall, our simulation training significantly increased the points of decision support taken into account (57.8% vs. 88.9%, p &lt; 0.001). Viewed individually, the largest increase of 180% was seen in risk assessment (33.3% vs. 93.3%, p &lt; 0.002). The second largest increase of 150% was seen in the question of one&rsquo;s own permissions (26.7% vs. 66.7%, p &lt; 0.066). Also, the control increased (40.0% vs. 86.7%, p &lt; 0.021). Conclusions: With a brief training course, both the awareness and the implementation of a structured decision-making model in paramedic students can be significantly increased. Nevertheless, no definitive conclusions can be made with respect to the implementation of real patient care. The application of structured, standardized decision-making tools may need to be further consolidated in routine medical use

Development of an Adapted Model for Decision-Making to Improve Reasoning and Risk Assessment in an Emergency Team: A Prospective Simulation Study

Background and Objectives: Medical staff is rarely trained in structured decision-making, relying instead on intuition without due consideration for the associated pros and cons. Materials and Methods: We adopted a model for decision-making to improve reasoning and risk assessment and carried out a prospective simulation study using paramedic students in a three-year training program. We conducted a training session in which participants were lectured on decision-making using the FAR-BEK model (German abbreviation for facts, alternatives, risks, competence, decision, control), physiological processes in decision-making under stress, as well as medico-legal aspects for the comprehension and justification of medical decisions. We analyzed pre- and post-training scenarios to elucidate the influence of training on decision-making. Results: Twenty paramedic students, with a mean age of 22.0 ± 1.7 years, took part in the study. The question of whether decision aids can be applied, initially affirmed by 40% of participants, rose to 71.4% (p = 0.011) following our training. Confidence in decision-making increased on a 7-point Likert scale from 4.5 to 4.8 points (p &lt; 0.394). The reasoning behind the decisions rose from 5.3 to 5.6 points (p &lt; 0.081). Indication, options, and risks rose significantly, from 5.4 to 6.1 points (p = 0.045). Overall, our simulation training significantly increased the points of decision support taken into account (57.8% vs. 88.9%, p &lt; 0.001). Viewed individually, the largest increase of 180% was seen in risk assessment (33.3% vs. 93.3%, p &lt; 0.002). The second largest increase of 150% was seen in the question of one’s own permissions (26.7% vs. 66.7%, p &lt; 0.066). Also, the control increased (40.0% vs. 86.7%, p &lt; 0.021). Conclusions: With a brief training course, both the awareness and the implementation of a structured decision-making model in paramedic students can be significantly increased. Nevertheless, no definitive conclusions can be made with respect to the implementation of real patient care. The application of structured, standardized decision-making tools may need to be further consolidated in routine medical use.</jats:p

Prevalence of prehospital pain and pain assessment difference between patients and paramedics: a prospective cross-sectional observational study

Abstract Adequate analgesia is one of the most important interventions in emergency medicine. However, studies suggest that many patients are undertreated for pain. There can be many reasons why patients assess their pain differently to the paramedics. This study aimed to assess the differences in pain ratings between patients and paramedics and factors influencing them in prehospital emergencies. This prospective cross-sectional observational study included patients treated and transported by paramedics or paramedics and emergency physicians of the German Red Cross in Reutlingen, Germany. This study included 6,365 patients. The prevalence of pain was 49.7%. Among patients with a self-reported numerical rating scale (NRS) > 0, the mean patient pain rating was NRS 4.2 ± 2.7, while the mean paramedic pain rating was NRS 3.6 ± 2.4 (p < 0.001). Approximately 11.8% (n = 751) of patients reported subjectively unbearable pain. Patients reported a mean NRS of 7.7 ± 1.8 for unbearable pain, but a mean NRS of 3.3 ± 2.0 for bearable pain (p < 0.001). The difference in pain ratings between patients and paramedics increased with pain severity. Univariate analysis showed that there were no gender differences, but the difference in pain rating was influenced by patient age (p < 0.001) and paramedic age (p = 0.042). The differences in pain ratings were particularly pronounced for abdominal diseases (p < 0.001) and trauma (p < 0.001). There is a difference in pain ratings between patients and paramedics, which increases with pain severity and appears to be associated with the patient’s age and the paramedic’s age. To determine the desire and need for analgesics, the question about unbearable pain is a good addition to the NRS