{"title":"The impact of using pain scales by untrained students on the decision to provide analgesia to multiple species","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.vaa.2024.06.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate if students without training assess pain similarly to an expert, and to compare indications for analgesic intervention based on student opinions <em>versus</em> scale scoring.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Prospective, blind, randomized, cross-sectional study.</p></div><div><h3>Animals</h3><p>Video recordings of a bull, horse, cat, pig and sheep.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>First-year veterinary medicine students assessed one video of a horse (<em>n</em> = 44) and one video of a bull (<em>n</em> = 39). Third-year veterinary medicine students assessed one video of a cat (<em>n</em> = 23) and one video of a pig (<em>n</em> = 21). Fourth-year animal science students (<em>n</em> = 16) assessed one video of a sheep. The species assessed by different student classes were determined randomly. Students were unaware of animal history or existing pain assessment and decided whether they would provide analgesia according to their opinion. They then scored each video using species-specific validated pain scales. Scores were compared with those of a board-certified anesthesiologist (expert). Chi-square test was used to compare students and expert.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Students underestimated the expert's score by 8–20%, except for the horse. There was no difference between the analgesic indication according to the assessment of the expert (143/143, 100%) and students (141/143, 98.6%) considering the defined analgesic intervention threshold for each scale (<em>p</em> = 0.478). The indication for analgesic intervention according to students’ opinion (116/143, 81.1%) was lower than that according to their scale scores (141/143, 98.6%) (<em>p</em> < 0.0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical relevance</h3><p>Students tended to underestimate pain; however, they detected pain that requires analgesic intervention in animals similarly to an expert. The use of scales optimized the indication for providing analgesia when animals were experiencing pain that required analgesic intervention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23626,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467298724001211","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate if students without training assess pain similarly to an expert, and to compare indications for analgesic intervention based on student opinions versus scale scoring.
Video recordings of a bull, horse, cat, pig and sheep.
Methods
First-year veterinary medicine students assessed one video of a horse (n = 44) and one video of a bull (n = 39). Third-year veterinary medicine students assessed one video of a cat (n = 23) and one video of a pig (n = 21). Fourth-year animal science students (n = 16) assessed one video of a sheep. The species assessed by different student classes were determined randomly. Students were unaware of animal history or existing pain assessment and decided whether they would provide analgesia according to their opinion. They then scored each video using species-specific validated pain scales. Scores were compared with those of a board-certified anesthesiologist (expert). Chi-square test was used to compare students and expert.
Results
Students underestimated the expert's score by 8–20%, except for the horse. There was no difference between the analgesic indication according to the assessment of the expert (143/143, 100%) and students (141/143, 98.6%) considering the defined analgesic intervention threshold for each scale (p = 0.478). The indication for analgesic intervention according to students’ opinion (116/143, 81.1%) was lower than that according to their scale scores (141/143, 98.6%) (p < 0.0001).
Conclusions and clinical relevance
Students tended to underestimate pain; however, they detected pain that requires analgesic intervention in animals similarly to an expert. The use of scales optimized the indication for providing analgesia when animals were experiencing pain that required analgesic intervention.
期刊介绍：
Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia is the official journal of the Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists, the American College of Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia and the European College of Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. Its purpose is the publication of original, peer reviewed articles covering all branches of anaesthesia and the relief of pain in animals. Articles concerned with the following subjects related to anaesthesia and analgesia are also welcome:
the basic sciences;
pathophysiology of disease as it relates to anaesthetic management
equipment
intensive care
chemical restraint of animals including laboratory animals, wildlife and exotic animals
welfare issues associated with pain and distress
education in veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia.
Review articles, special articles, and historical notes will also be published, along with editorials, case reports in the form of letters to the editor, and book reviews. There is also an active correspondence section.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
