The influence of paramedic qualification level on the administration of analgesia in the prehospital setting

B. Lord, Toby Keene, C. Luck
{"title":"The influence of paramedic qualification level on the administration of analgesia in the prehospital setting","authors":"B. Lord, Toby Keene, C. Luck","doi":"10.32378/ijp.v4i2.187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundUndertreatment of pain has been reported in the paramedic literature, and reasons for these disparities are not well understood.AimsAs the qualification level of the paramedic may affect analgesia administration, the primary aim of this study was to determine the impact of paramedic qualification on the provision of any analgesia for patients reporting pain.MethodsRetrospective study of de-identified patient care records from one Australian ambulance service over a period of 6 months. Inclusion criteria were age was > 17 years, initial pain severity score was > 3/10 and Glasgow Coma Score >13. Data were descriptively analysed for analgesia administration and type of analgesic by predictor variables: age, sex, pain score and case nature. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to test for associations between the outcome of interest and predictor variables. Adjusted logged odds of patients receiving analgesia was tested with binomial logistic regression.Findings3173 patient records met the inclusion criteria. ICP treated 86% of the sample population. Of those treated by an AP, 76.2% (n=340) received analgesia, whereas 71.6% (n=1952) of patients treated by an ICP received analgesia (p=0.042). Methoxyflurane was the most frequently administered analgesic, with 39.9% of the patients (n=1,264) receiving this agent; 31.1% of patients (n=988) received morphine, and 14.2% (n=452) received fentanyl. The unadjusted regression model found that AP have higher odds of administering analgesia than ICP paramedics (OR 1.264, p <0.05). However, once other covariates are included in the logistic regression, the significance no longer exists.ConclusionParamedic qualification is not associated with the administration of analgesia in this setting. This study contributes to the gap in knowledge regarding disparities in analgesia for adults experiencing pain and may inform future research that aims to identify and reduce barriers to appropriate pain management in the paramedic practice setting.","PeriodicalId":367364,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Paramedicine","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32378/ijp.v4i2.187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundUndertreatment of pain has been reported in the paramedic literature, and reasons for these disparities are not well understood.AimsAs the qualification level of the paramedic may affect analgesia administration, the primary aim of this study was to determine the impact of paramedic qualification on the provision of any analgesia for patients reporting pain.MethodsRetrospective study of de-identified patient care records from one Australian ambulance service over a period of 6 months. Inclusion criteria were age was > 17 years, initial pain severity score was > 3/10 and Glasgow Coma Score >13. Data were descriptively analysed for analgesia administration and type of analgesic by predictor variables: age, sex, pain score and case nature. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to test for associations between the outcome of interest and predictor variables. Adjusted logged odds of patients receiving analgesia was tested with binomial logistic regression.Findings3173 patient records met the inclusion criteria. ICP treated 86% of the sample population. Of those treated by an AP, 76.2% (n=340) received analgesia, whereas 71.6% (n=1952) of patients treated by an ICP received analgesia (p=0.042). Methoxyflurane was the most frequently administered analgesic, with 39.9% of the patients (n=1,264) receiving this agent; 31.1% of patients (n=988) received morphine, and 14.2% (n=452) received fentanyl. The unadjusted regression model found that AP have higher odds of administering analgesia than ICP paramedics (OR 1.264, p <0.05). However, once other covariates are included in the logistic regression, the significance no longer exists.ConclusionParamedic qualification is not associated with the administration of analgesia in this setting. This study contributes to the gap in knowledge regarding disparities in analgesia for adults experiencing pain and may inform future research that aims to identify and reduce barriers to appropriate pain management in the paramedic practice setting.
院前护理人员资质水平对镇痛给药的影响
背景:在护理文献中有关于疼痛治疗不足的报道,而造成这些差异的原因尚不清楚。由于护理人员的资格水平可能会影响镇痛药的给药,本研究的主要目的是确定护理人员资格对报告疼痛的患者提供任何镇痛药的影响。方法回顾性研究来自澳大利亚一家救护车服务机构6个月的去识别病人护理记录。纳入标准为年龄> 17岁,初始疼痛严重程度评分> 3/10,格拉斯哥昏迷评分>13。通过预测变量:年龄、性别、疼痛评分和病例性质,对镇痛药和镇痛药类型的数据进行描述性分析。使用Pearson卡方检验来检验兴趣结果与预测变量之间的相关性。采用二项logistic回归对接受镇痛治疗的患者进行校正后的记录赔率检验。结果:s3173例患者符合纳入标准。ICP治疗了86%的样本人群。在AP治疗的患者中,76.2% (n=340)出现了镇痛,而ICP治疗的患者中有71.6% (n=1952)出现了镇痛(p=0.042)。甲氧基氟醚是最常用的镇痛药,有39.9%的患者(n=1,264)使用该药物;31.1% (n=988)的患者使用吗啡,14.2% (n=452)的患者使用芬太尼。未经调整的回归模型发现,AP给予镇痛的几率高于ICP护理人员(OR 1.264, p <0.05)。然而,一旦在逻辑回归中包含其他协变量,显著性就不再存在。结论在这种情况下,护理人员资格与镇痛药的使用无关。这项研究有助于了解关于成人疼痛镇痛差异的知识差距,并可能为未来的研究提供信息,旨在识别和减少护理人员实践中适当疼痛管理的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信