OPIATE-SPARING ANALGESIA PROTOCOL FOR PAIN AFTER OSMOTIC DILATOR PLACEMENT: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STUDY

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
PD Kendall, J Sheeder, S Wilson, N Fang
{"title":"OPIATE-SPARING ANALGESIA PROTOCOL FOR PAIN AFTER OSMOTIC DILATOR PLACEMENT: A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STUDY","authors":"PD Kendall,&nbsp;J Sheeder,&nbsp;S Wilson,&nbsp;N Fang","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aimed to compare maximum overnight pain scores and patient satisfaction with routine opiate provision versus an opiate-sparing analgesia protocol after osmotic dilator placement before dilation and evacuation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a quality improvement study comparing out-of-clinic analgesia protocols for patients undergoing one and two days of osmotic dilator cervical preparation prior to dilation and evacuation at 16 to 26 weeks gestation. For two 13-week periods, we assessed the outcomes of our previous analgesia protocol of universal opiate prescription to our new protocol in which we only provided an opiate prescription at patient request or provider recommendation. Pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; scale 0-10). The primary outcome was median individual pain score change from baseline to maximum. Patient and clinical characteristics, anxiety, sleep, activity disruptions, analgesic use, and patient satisfaction were assessed by medical record review and patient surveys.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The routine opiate provision and opiate-sparing groups included 55 and 50 patients, respectively. 52 (92.9%) in the routine opiate provision group and 7 (14%) in the opiate sparing protocol received an opiate prescription (p=&lt;0.001). For patients undergoing one and two days of osmotic dilators, the median change in pain from baseline to maximum did not differ between groups (7.0 (range:0-10) to 6.0 (0-10);p=0.06 and 8.0 (0-10) to 6.0 (5-10);p=0.45). Anxiety, satisfaction, other analgesic use, calls to providers, and complications did not differ between groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Clinicians can utilize an opiate-sparing protocol for analgesia after osmotic dilator placement to reduce opiate prescriptions while providing adequate analgesia and satisfaction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10762,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782424003196","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to compare maximum overnight pain scores and patient satisfaction with routine opiate provision versus an opiate-sparing analgesia protocol after osmotic dilator placement before dilation and evacuation.

Methods

We conducted a quality improvement study comparing out-of-clinic analgesia protocols for patients undergoing one and two days of osmotic dilator cervical preparation prior to dilation and evacuation at 16 to 26 weeks gestation. For two 13-week periods, we assessed the outcomes of our previous analgesia protocol of universal opiate prescription to our new protocol in which we only provided an opiate prescription at patient request or provider recommendation. Pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; scale 0-10). The primary outcome was median individual pain score change from baseline to maximum. Patient and clinical characteristics, anxiety, sleep, activity disruptions, analgesic use, and patient satisfaction were assessed by medical record review and patient surveys.

Results

The routine opiate provision and opiate-sparing groups included 55 and 50 patients, respectively. 52 (92.9%) in the routine opiate provision group and 7 (14%) in the opiate sparing protocol received an opiate prescription (p=<0.001). For patients undergoing one and two days of osmotic dilators, the median change in pain from baseline to maximum did not differ between groups (7.0 (range:0-10) to 6.0 (0-10);p=0.06 and 8.0 (0-10) to 6.0 (5-10);p=0.45). Anxiety, satisfaction, other analgesic use, calls to providers, and complications did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Clinicians can utilize an opiate-sparing protocol for analgesia after osmotic dilator placement to reduce opiate prescriptions while providing adequate analgesia and satisfaction.
针对放置渗透扩张器后疼痛的阿片类镇痛方案:质量改进研究
方法 我们进行了一项质量改进研究,比较了在妊娠 16 到 26 周时,在扩张和排空前为接受一到两天渗透扩张器宫颈准备的患者实施的诊室外镇痛方案。在两个为期 13 周的时间段内,我们评估了之前普遍使用阿片类药物处方的镇痛方案和新方案的效果,在新方案中,我们只在患者要求或医疗服务提供者推荐的情况下提供阿片类药物处方。疼痛采用 11 点数字评分量表(NRS,0-10 分)进行评估。主要结果是个人疼痛评分从基线到最大值的中位数变化。患者和临床特征、焦虑、睡眠、活动中断、镇痛剂使用和患者满意度通过病历审查和患者调查进行评估。常规阿片类药物供应组中有 52 人(92.9%)接受了阿片类药物处方,阿片类药物保留方案组中有 7 人(14%)接受了阿片类药物处方(p=<0.001)。对于接受一天和两天渗透性扩张剂治疗的患者,疼痛从基线到最大值的中位变化在各组之间没有差异(7.0(范围:0-10)至 6.0(0-10);p=0.06 和 8.0(0-10)至 6.0(5-10);p=0.45)。结论临床医生可以在放置渗透性扩张器后使用阿片类药物稀释方案进行镇痛,以减少阿片类药物处方,同时提供足够的镇痛和满意度。
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
Contraception
Contraception 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
17.20%
发文量
211
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: Contraception has an open access mirror journal Contraception: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The journal Contraception wishes to advance reproductive health through the rapid publication of the best and most interesting new scholarship regarding contraception and related fields such as abortion. The journal welcomes manuscripts from investigators working in the laboratory, clinical and social sciences, as well as public health and health professions education.
×
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