Paul A. Jennings

Morphine and Ketamine Is Superior to Morphine Alone for Out-of-Hospital Trauma Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE We assess the efficacy of intravenous ketamine compared with intravenous morphine in reducing pain in adults with significant out-of-hospital traumatic pain. METHODS This study was an out-of-hospital, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label study. Patients with trauma and a verbal pain score of greater than 5 after 5 mg intravenous morphine were eligible for enrollment. Patients allocated to the ketamine group received a bolus of 10 or 20 mg, followed by 10 mg every 3 minutes thereafter. Patients allocated to the morphine alone group received 5 mg intravenously every 5 minutes until pain free. Pain scores were measured at baseline and at hospital arrival. RESULTS A total of 135 patients were enrolled between December 2007 and July 2010. There were no differences between the groups at baseline. After the initial 5-mg dose of intravenous morphine, patients allocated to ketamine received a mean of 40.6 mg (SD 25 mg) of ketamine. Patients allocated to morphine alone received a mean of 14.4 mg (SD 9.4 mg) of morphine. The mean pain score change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] -6.2 to -5.0) in the ketamine group compared with -3.2 (95% CI -3.7 to -2.7) in the morphine group. The difference in mean pain score change was -2.4 (95% CI -3.2 to -1.6) points. The intravenous morphine group had 9 of 65 (14%; 95% CI 6% to 25%) adverse effects reported (most commonly nausea [6/65; 9%]) compared with 27 of 70 (39%; 95% CI 27% to 51%) in the ketamine group (most commonly disorientation [8/70; 11%]). CONCLUSION Intravenous morphine plus ketamine for out-of-hospital adult trauma patients provides analgesia superior to that of intravenous morphine alone but was associated with an increase in the rate of minor adverse effects.

Ketamine as an analgesic in the pre-hospital setting: a systematic review

Background: Pain is a common presenting complaint and there is considerable debate regarding the best practice for analgesia in the pre‐hospital environment for trauma patients with severe pain.

Measuring acute pain in the prehospital setting

Severe pain is a common presenting symptom for emergency patients. One major challenge in the management of severe pain is the objective measurement of pain. Due to the subjective nature of pain, it can be very difficult for clinicians to quantify pain intensity and measure the qualitative features of the pain experience. A number of measurement tools have been validated in the acute care setting, with some appropriate for use in the prehospital setting. This paper reviews the characteristics required of a prehospital acute pain measure and appraises the relative utility of a number of currently used pain measures. At present, the verbal numerical rating scale appears the most appropriate pain measure to administer in the prehospital setting for adult patients as it is practical and valid. Either the Oucher scale or the faces pain scale is suitable for prehospital care providers to assess pain in children.

Epidemiology of prehospital pain: an opportunity for improvement

This retrospective, electronic patient care record review examined a consecutive sample of patients presenting with pain to the metropolitan region of Ambulance Victoria over a period of 12 months in 2008. The majority of patients did not achieve clinically significant pain reduction, but did achieve some pain relief while in ambulance care. Those with the most severe pain had pain reduction that was clinically significant. Further research is needed to provide optimal pain relief in the prehospital setting.

Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions in Return-to-Work for Musculoskeletal, Pain-Related and Mental Health Conditions: An Update of the Evidence and Messages for Practitioners

Purpose The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) interventions and work disability management (DM) interventions that assist workers with musculoskeletal (MSK) and pain-related conditions and mental health (MH) conditions with RTW. Methods We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis that ranked evidence as strong, moderate, limited, or insufficient. Results Seven electronic databases were searched from January 1990 until April 2015, yielding 8898 non-duplicate references. Evidence from 36 medium and high quality studies were synthesized on 12 different intervention categories across three broad domains: health-focused, service coordination, and work modification interventions. There was strong evidence that duration away from work from both MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions were significantly reduced by multi-domain interventions encompassing at least two of the three domains. There was moderate evidence that these multi-domain interventions had a positive impact on cost outcomes. There was strong evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy interventions that do not also include workplace modifications or service coordination components are not effective in helping workers with MH conditions in RTW. Evidence for the effectiveness of other single-domain interventions was mixed, with some studies reporting positive effects and others reporting no effects on lost time and work functioning. Conclusions While there is substantial research literature focused on RTW, there are only a small number of quality workplace-based RTW intervention studies that involve workers with MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions. We recommend implementing multi-domain interventions (i.e. with healthcare provision, service coordination, and work accommodation components) to help reduce lost time for MSK or pain-related conditions and MH conditions. Practitioners should also consider implementing these programs to help improve work functioning and reduce costs associated with work disability.

Scald burns in children aged 14 and younger in Australia and New Zealand—An analysis based on the Burn Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ)

INTRODUCTION Scalds are a common injury in children and a frequent reason for hospitalisation despite being a preventable injury. METHODS This retrospective two year study reports data from 730 children aged 14 years or younger who sustained a scald between 2009 and 2010 and were admitted to a burns centre in Australia or New Zealand. Data were extracted from the Burn Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ), which included data from 13 burns centres in Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS Scald injury contributed 56% (95% CI 53-59%) of all pediatric burns. There were two high risk groups; male toddlers age one to two, contributing 34% (95% CI 31-38%) of all scalds, and indigenous children who were over 3 times more likely to experience a scald requiring admission to a burns unit than their non-indigenous peers. First aid cooling by non-professionals was initiated in 89% (95% CI 86-91%) of cases but only 20% (95% CI 16-23%) performed it as recommended. CONCLUSION This study highlights that effective burn first aid reduces hospital stay and reinforces the need to encourage, carers and bystanders to deliver effective first aid and the importance of targeted prevention campaigns that reduce the burden of pediatric scald burns in Australia and New Zealand.

Should suspected cervical spinal cord injury be immobilised?: A systematic review

BACKGROUND Spinal cord injuries occur worldwide; often being life-threatening with devastating long term impacts on functioning, independence, health, and quality of life. OBJECTIVES Systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy of cervical spinal immobilisation (vs no immobilisation) in patients with suspected cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI); and to provide recommendations for prehospital spinal immobilisation. METHODS Searches were conducted of the Cochrane library, CINAHL, EMBASE, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of science, Google scholar, and OvidSP (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and DARE) databases. Studies were included if they were relevant to the research question, published in English, based in the prehospital setting, and included adult patients with traumatic injury. RESULTS The search identified 1471 citations, of which eight observational studies of variable quality were included. Four studies were retrospective cohorts, three were case series and one a case report. Cervical collar application was reported in penetrating trauma to be associated with unadjusted increased risk of mortality in two studies [(OR, 8.82; 95% CI, 1.09-194; p=0.038) & (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.35-3.13)], concealment of neck injuries in one study and increased scene time in another study. While, in blunt trauma, one study indicated that immobilisation might be associated with worsened neurological outcome (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.03-3.99; p=0.04, unadjusted). We did not attempt to combine study results due to significant heterogeneity of study design and outcome measures. CONCLUSION There is a lack of high-level evidence on the effect of prehospital cervical spine immobilisation on patient outcomes. There is a clear need for large prospective studies to determine the clinical benefit of prehospital spinal immobilisation as well as to identify the subgroup of patients most likely to benefit.

Barriers to incident notification in a regional prehospital setting

Background The identification and monitoring of critical incidents or adverse events and error reporting is a relatively new area of study in the prehospital setting. In 2005, we commenced a prospective descriptive study of the implementation of a Critical Incident Monitoring process in a rural/regional pre-hospital setting. The objective of the project was to describe the nature and incidence of errors detected in the management of prehospital trauma with the ultimate aim of identifying processes to reduce or mitigate such incidents. This paper describes the barriers to reporting critical incidents identified during the 3-year study. Method This study used a qualitative approach involving the triangulation of a number of ethnographic methodologies, including unscripted focus groups, informal interviews and qualitative aspects of surveys utilised in a broader research project. Prevailing themes were fed back to participants in an iterative process to further explore perceptions and beliefs regarding these concepts. The final analysis of themes is descriptively presented. Results A number of barriers were identified and categorised into seven themes. These themes were; Burden of reporting, fear of disciplinary action, fear of potential litigation, fear of breaches of confidentiality and fear of embarrassment, concern that ‘nothing would change’ even if the incident was reported, lack of familiarity with process and impact of ‘blame culture’. Conclusion There are numerous barriers to reporting critical incidents. One of the key approaches which may alleviate many of the barriers to reporting is shifting to a systems based focus rather than an individual ‘shame and blame’ approach. The underlying barriers lie in the culture of the profession, and appear consistent across other health care disciplines.

Chronic Pain following Motor Vehicle Collision: A Systematic Review of Outcomes Associated with Seeking or Receiving Compensation

Objective:Motor vehicle collisions (MVC) are a major cause of injury, which frequently lead to chronic pain and prolonged disability. Several studies have found that seeking or receiving financial compensation following MVC leads to poorer recovery and worse pain. We evaluated the evidence for the relationship between compensation and chronic pain following MVC within a biopsychosocial framework. Method:A comprehensive search of 5 computerized databases was conducted. Methodological quality was evaluated independently by 2 researchers according to formal criteria, and discrepancies were resolved with a third reviewer. Results:We identified 5619 studies, from which 230 full-text articles were retrieved and 27 studies were retained for appraisal. A third of studies (37%) were of low quality, and 44% did not measure or control for factors such as injury severity or preinjury pain and disability. Most studies (70%) reported adverse outcomes, including all of the highest quality studies. Engagement with compensation systems was related to more prevalent self-reported chronic pain, mental health disorders, and reduced return to work. Recovery was poorer when fault was attributed to another, or when a lawyer was involved. Five studies compared Tort “common law” and No-Fault schemes directly and concluded that Tort claimants had poorer recovery. Conclusions:Although causal relationships cannot be assumed, the findings imply that aspects of loss, injustice, and secondary mental health outcomes lead to chronic pain following MVC. Further robust prospective research is required to understand the complex relationship between compensation systems and pain following road trauma, particularly the role of secondary mental health outcomes.

An automated CPR device compared with standard chest compressions for out-of-hospital resuscitation

BackgroundEffective cardiopulmonary resuscitation and increased coronary perfusion pressures have been linked to improved survival from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare the rates of survival between conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-CPR) and automated CPR (A-CPR) using AutoPulse™ in adults following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsThis was a retrospective study using a matched case–control design across three regional study sites in Victoria, Australia. Each case was matched to at least two (maximum four) controls using age, gender, response time, presenting cardiac rhythm and bystander CPR, and analysed using conditional fixed-effects logistic regression.ResultsDuring the period 1 October 2006 to 30 April 2010 there were 66 OHCA cases using A-CPR. These were matched to 220 cases of OHCA involving the administration of C-CPR only (controls). Survival to hospital was achieved in 26% (17/66) of cases receiving A-CPR compared with 20% (43/220) of controls receiving C-CPR and the propensity score adjusted odds ratio [AOR (95% CI)] was 1.69 (0.79, 3.63). Results were similar using only bystander witnessed OHCA cases with presumed cardiac aetiology. Survival to hospital was achieved for 29% (14/48) of cases receiving A-CPR compared with 18% (21/116) of those receiving C-CPR [AOR = 1.80 (0.78, 4.11)].ConclusionsThe use of A-CPR resulted in a higher rate of survival to hospital compared with C-CPR, yet a tendency for a lower rate of survival to hospital discharge, however these associations did not reach statistical significance. Further research is warranted which is prospective in nature, involves randomisation and larger number of cases to investigate potential sub-group benefits of A-CPR including survival to hospital discharge.