Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Disaster Metrics: A Proposed Quantitative Assessment Tool in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies - The Public Health Impact Severity Scale (PHISS)

Background: Complex Humanitarian Emergencies (CHE) result in rapid degradation of population health and quickly overwhelm indigenous health resources. Numerous governmental, non-governmental, national and international organizations and agencies are involved in the assessment of post-CHE affected populations. To date, there is no entirely quantitative assessment tool conceptualized to measure the public health impact of CHE. Methods: Essential public health parameters in CHE were identified based on the Sphere Project "Minimum Standards", and scoring rubrics were proposed based on the prevailing evidence when applicable. Results: 12 quantitative parameters were identified, representing the four categories of “Minimum Standards for Disaster Response” according to the Sphere Project; health, shelter, food and nutrition, in addition to water and sanitation. The cumulative tool constitutes a quantitative scale, referred to as the Public Health Impact Severity Scale (PHISS), and the score on this scale ranges from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100. Conclusion: Quantitative measurement of the public health impact of CHE is germane to accurate assessment, in order to identify the scale and scope of the critical response required for the relief efforts of the affected populations. PHISS is a new conceptual metric tool, proposed to add an objective quantitative dimension to the post-CHE assessment arsenal. PHISS has not yet been validated, and studies are needed with prospective data collection to test its validity, feasibility and reliability. Citation: Bayram JD, Kysia R, Kirsch TD. Disaster Metrics: A Proposed Quantitative Assessment Tool in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies – The Public Health Impact Severity Scale (PHISS). PLOS Currents Disasters. 2012 Aug 21. doi: 10.1371/4f7b4bab0d1a3

Do End-of-Rotation and End-of-Shift Assessments Inform Clinical Competency Committees’ (CCC) Decisions?

Introduction: Clinical Competency Committees (CCC) require reliable, objective data to inform decisions regarding assignment of milestone proficiency levels, which must be reported to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. After the development of two new assessment methods, the end-of-shift (EOS) assessment and the end-of-rotation (EOR) assessment, we sought to evaluate their performance. We report data on the concordance between these assessments, as well as how each informs the final proficiency level determined in biannual CCC meetings. We hypothesized that there would be a high concordance level between the two assessment methods, including concordance of both the EOS and EOR with the final proficiency level designation by the CCC. Methods: The residency program is an urban academic four-year emergency medicine residency with 48 residents. After their shifts in the emergency department (ED), residents handed out EOS assessment forms asking about individual milestones from 15 subcompetencies to supervising physicians, as well as triggered electronic EOR-doctor (EORd) assessments to supervising doctors and EOR-nurse (EORn) to nurses they had worked with after each two-week ED block. EORd assessments contained the full proficiency level scale from 16 subcompetencies, while EORn assessments contained four subcompetencies. Data reports were generated after each six-month assessment period and data was aggregated. We calculated Spearman’s rank order correlations for correlations between assessment types and between assessments and final CCC proficiency levels.Results: Over 24 months, 5,234 assessments were completed. The strongest correlations with CCC proficiency levels were the EORd for the immediate six-month assessment period prior (rs 0.71-0.84), and the CCC proficiency levels from the previous six-months (rs 0.83-0.92). EOS assessments had weaker correlations (rs 0.49 to 0.62), as did EORn (rs 0.4 to 0.73).Conclusion: End-of-rotation assessments completed by supervising doctors are most highly correlated with final CCC proficiency level designations, while end-of-shift assessments and end-of-rotation assessments by nurses did not correlate strongly with final CCC proficiency levels, both with overestimation of levels noted. Every level of proficiency the CCC assigned appears to be highly correlated with the designated level in the immediate six-month period, perhaps implying CCC members are biased by previous level assignments. [West J Emerg Med.20XX;X(X)–0.

Do End-of-Rotation and End-of-Shift Assessments Inform Clinical Competency Committees’ (CCC) Decisions?

Introduction: Clinical Competency Committees (CCC) require reliable, objective data to inform decisions regarding assignment of milestone proficiency levels, which must be reported to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. After the development of two new assessment methods, the end-of-shift (EOS) assessment and the end-of-rotation (EOR) assessment, we sought to evaluate their performance. We report data on the concordance between these assessments, as well as how each informs the final proficiency level determined in biannual CCC meetings. We hypothesized that there would be a high concordance level between the two assessment methods, including concordance of both the EOS and EOR with the final proficiency level designation by the CCC. Methods: The residency program is an urban academic four-year emergency medicine residency with 48 residents. After their shifts in the emergency department (ED), residents handed out EOS assessment forms asking about individual milestones from 15 subcompetencies to supervising physicians, as well as triggered electronic EOR-doctor (EORd) assessments to supervising doctors and EOR-nurse (EORn) to nurses they had worked with after each two-week ED block. EORd assessments contained the full proficiency level scale from 16 subcompetencies, while EORn assessments contained four subcompetencies. Data reports were generated after each six-month assessment period and data was aggregated. We calculated Spearman’s rank order correlations for correlations between assessment types and between assessments and final CCC proficiency levels.Results: Over 24 months, 5,234 assessments were completed. The strongest correlations with CCC proficiency levels were the EORd for the immediate six-month assessment period prior (rs 0.71-0.84), and the CCC proficiency levels from the previous six-months (rs 0.83-0.92). EOS assessments had weaker correlations (rs 0.49 to 0.62), as did EORn (rs 0.4 to 0.73).Conclusion: End-of-rotation assessments completed by supervising doctors are most highly correlated with final CCC proficiency level designations, while end-of-shift assessments and end-of-rotation assessments by nurses did not correlate strongly with final CCC proficiency levels, both with overestimation of levels noted. Every level of proficiency the CCC assigned appears to be highly correlated with the designated level in the immediate six-month period, perhaps implying CCC members are biased by previous level assignments. [West J Emerg Med.20XX;X(X)–0.

Do End-of-Rotation and End-of-Shift Assessments Inform Clinical Competency Committees’ (CCC) Decisions?

Introduction Clinical Competency Committees (CCC) require reliable, objective data to inform decisions regarding assignment of milestone proficiency levels, which must be reported to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. After the development of two new assessment methods, the end-of-shift (EOS) assessment and the end-of-rotation (EOR) assessment, we sought to evaluate their performance. We report data on the concordance between these assessments, as well as how each informs the final proficiency level determined in biannual CCC meetings. We hypothesized that there would be a high concordance level between the two assessment methods, including concordance of both the EOS and EOR with the final proficiency level designation by the CCC. Methods The residency program is an urban academic four-year emergency medicine residency with 48 residents. After their shifts in the emergency department (ED), residents handed out EOS assessment forms asking about individual milestones from 15 subcompetencies to supervising physicians, as well as triggered electronic EOR-doctor (EORd) assessments to supervising doctors and EOR-nurse (EORn) to nurses they had worked with after each two-week ED block. EORd assessments contained the full proficiency level scale from 16 subcompetencies, while EORn assessments contained four subcompetencies. Data reports were generated after each six-month assessment period and data was aggregated. We calculated Spearman’s rank order correlations for correlations between assessment types and between assessments and final CCC proficiency levels. Results Over 24 months, 5,234 assessments were completed. The strongest correlations with CCC proficiency levels were the EORd for the immediate six-month assessment period prior (r s 0.71–0.84), and the CCC proficiency levels from the previous six-months (r s 0.83–0.92). EOS assessments had weaker correlations (r s 0.49 to 0.62), as did EORn (r s 0.4 to 0.73). Conclusion End-of-rotation assessments completed by supervising doctors are most highly correlated with final CCC proficiency level designations, while end-of-shift assessments and end-of-rotation assessments by nurses did not correlate strongly with final CCC proficiency levels, both with overestimation of levels noted. Every level of proficiency the CCC assigned appears to be highly correlated with the designated level in the immediate six-month period, perhaps implying CCC members are biased by previous level assignments

Critical resources for hospital surge capacity: an expert consensus panel

Background: Hospital surge capacity (HSC) is dependent on the ability to increase or conserve resources. The hospital surge model put forth by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) estimates the resources needed by hospitals to treat casualties resulting from 13 national planning scenarios. However, emergency planners need to know which hospital resource are most critical in order to develop a more accurate plan for HSC in the event of a disaster. Objective: To identify critical hospital resources required in four specific catastrophic scenarios; namely, pandemic influenza, radiation, explosive, and nerve gas. Methods: We convened an expert consensus panel comprised of 23 participants representing health providers (i.e., nurses and physicians), administrators, emergency planners, and specialists. Four disaster scenarios were examined by the panel. Participants were divided into 4 groups of five or six members, each of which were assigned two of four scenarios. They were asked to consider 132 hospital patient care resources- extracted from the AHRQ's hospital surge model- in order to identify the ones that would be critical in their opinion to patient care. The definition for a critical hospital resource was the following: absence of the resource is likely to have a major impact on patient outcomes, i.e., high likelihood of untoward event, possibly death. For items with any disagreement in ranking, we conducted a facilitated discussion (modified Delphi technique) until consensus was reached, which was defined as more than 50% agreement. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated for each scenario, and across all scenarios as a measure of participant agreement on critical resources. For the critical resources common to all scenarios, Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to measure the distribution of scores across all scenarios. Results: Of the 132 hospital resources, 25 were considered critical for all four scenarios by more than 50% of the participants. The number of hospital resources considered to be critical by consensus varied from one scenario to another; 58 for the pandemic influenza scenario, 51 for radiation exposure, 41 for explosives, and 35 for nerve gas scenario. Intravenous crystalloid solution was the only resource ranked by all participants as critical across all scenarios. The agreement in ranking was strong in nerve agent and pandemic influenza (ICC= 0.7 in both), and moderate in explosives (ICC= 0.6) and radiation (ICC= 0.5). Conclusion: In four disaster scenarios, namely, radiation, pandemic influenza, explosives, and nerve gas scenarios; supply of as few as 25 common resources may be considered critical to hospital surge capacity. The absence of any these resources may compromise patient care. More studies are needed to identify critical hospital resources in other disaster scenarios