A Retrospective Study of Headache Treatment Between Rural and Urban Emergency Departments in South Dakota.

Q4 Medicine
Logan Stacey, Alan Sazama, Benjamin Aaker
{"title":"A Retrospective Study of Headache Treatment Between Rural and Urban Emergency Departments in South Dakota.","authors":"Logan Stacey, Alan Sazama, Benjamin Aaker","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Headaches are a common chief complaint in emergency departments (EDs), with rural patients facing unique challenges such as geographic isolation and limited access to care. This study aims to compare treatment efficacy for this top five ED chief complaint between rural and urban EDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients treated for headaches from 2020-2023 were identified using diagnosis codes and electronic health records. Treatment plans and patient demographics were abstracted from identified charts. EDs were categorized as rural (populations under 50,000) or urban.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13,375 patients were included (6,165 urban, 7,210 rural). Pain reduction was similar between urban (3.78) and rural EDs (3.61) (p = 0.094). Urban EDs had longer visit times (2.95 hours vs. 2.60 hours in rural EDs). Medication use varied: opioids were more frequently used in rural EDs (8.3% vs. 3.6%), while NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and prokinetics showed similar use across both settings. Demographics differed slightly, with a higher percentage of Native American patients in rural EDs (10% vs. 5.5% urban).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Treatment efficacy for headaches did not differ significantly between urban and rural EDs. Rural patients spent less time in the ED, likely due to lower patient volume, and opioid use was higher in rural locations.</p>","PeriodicalId":39219,"journal":{"name":"South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association","volume":"78 suppl 5","pages":"s36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Dakota medicine : the journal of the South Dakota State Medical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Headaches are a common chief complaint in emergency departments (EDs), with rural patients facing unique challenges such as geographic isolation and limited access to care. This study aims to compare treatment efficacy for this top five ED chief complaint between rural and urban EDs.

Methods: Patients treated for headaches from 2020-2023 were identified using diagnosis codes and electronic health records. Treatment plans and patient demographics were abstracted from identified charts. EDs were categorized as rural (populations under 50,000) or urban.

Results: A total of 13,375 patients were included (6,165 urban, 7,210 rural). Pain reduction was similar between urban (3.78) and rural EDs (3.61) (p = 0.094). Urban EDs had longer visit times (2.95 hours vs. 2.60 hours in rural EDs). Medication use varied: opioids were more frequently used in rural EDs (8.3% vs. 3.6%), while NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and prokinetics showed similar use across both settings. Demographics differed slightly, with a higher percentage of Native American patients in rural EDs (10% vs. 5.5% urban).

Conclusions: Treatment efficacy for headaches did not differ significantly between urban and rural EDs. Rural patients spent less time in the ED, likely due to lower patient volume, and opioid use was higher in rural locations.

南达科他州农村和城市急诊科头痛治疗回顾性研究
简介:头痛是急诊科(EDs)常见的主诉,农村患者面临着独特的挑战,如地理隔离和获得护理的机会有限。本研究旨在比较农村和城市急诊科对这五大主诉的治疗效果。方法:使用诊断代码和电子健康记录对2020-2023年治疗的头痛患者进行识别。从确定的图表中提取治疗方案和患者人口统计数据。急诊科分为农村(人口低于5万人)和城市。结果:共纳入13375例患者(城镇6165例,农村7210例)。城市ed(3.78)和农村ed(3.61)疼痛减轻相似(p = 0.094)。城市急诊科的就诊时间更长(2.95小时,农村急诊科为2.60小时)。药物使用情况各不相同:阿片类药物在农村急诊科的使用频率更高(8.3%对3.6%),而非甾体抗炎药、对乙酰氨基酚和促动力学在两种情况下的使用情况相似。人口统计数据略有不同,农村急诊科的美洲原住民患者比例较高(10% vs城市5.5%)。结论:城乡急诊科治疗头痛的疗效无显著差异。农村患者在急诊科花费的时间较少,可能是由于患者数量较少,农村地区的阿片类药物使用量较高。
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信