Comfort scores instead of pain scores as a possible tool for pain and analgesia reduction in the emergency department: A randomized controlled clinical trial
C.M. Edwards , S. Veenje , E. Visser , D. Dammers , M.I. de Haan-Lauteslager , H. Lameijer
{"title":"Comfort scores instead of pain scores as a possible tool for pain and analgesia reduction in the emergency department: A randomized controlled clinical trial","authors":"C.M. Edwards , S. Veenje , E. Visser , D. Dammers , M.I. de Haan-Lauteslager , H. Lameijer","doi":"10.1016/j.ienj.2025.101657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Frequent use of the term ’pain’ in clinical settings has been associated with the nocebo effect, potentially leading to increased pain perception and unnecessary analgesic use. This study aimed to explore the impact of cognitive reframing, employing comfort scores (CS) instead of pain scores (PS), on analgesic desire and usage in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this randomized controlled trial, ED patients with abdominal pain were assigned to either the PS group (assessing pain using a pain score) or CS group (assessing comfort using an inverted pain score). In the CS group, explicit references to ’pain’ or ’discomfort’ were avoided. Desire for and use of analgesia were assessed at triage, 1 h post-entry, and at ED discharge. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney <em>U</em> test for CS vs. PS and the Chi-squared test for analgesia desire and patient satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among the 496 included patients (36 % male, median age 52 (IQR 31–67) years), CS and PS groups showed similar characteristics and prehospital analgesic use. The PS group required slightly less morphine in dosage (PS: 0.05 mg/kg (0.03–0.07) vs. CS: 0.07 mg/kg (0.04–0.10), p = 0.03). CS scores were lower than PS scores, but only significant at 1 h post-entry (CS median (IQR): 5 (4–6) vs. PS 6 (4–7), p = 0.03). Baseline analgesic desire was lower in the CS group (45 % vs. 54 %, p = 0.06), with no differences in administered analgesic types. Treatment satisfaction did not differ between groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this study using CS as opposed to PS did not affect the desire for or the use of opioids or other analgesia in adult patients with abdominal pain presenting at the ED. Although CS may be potentially useful, using it instead of PS as a tool for cognitive reframing is currently not supported in the uncontrolled clinical setting of the ED.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48914,"journal":{"name":"International Emergency Nursing","volume":"82 ","pages":"Article 101657"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Emergency Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X25000874","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Frequent use of the term ’pain’ in clinical settings has been associated with the nocebo effect, potentially leading to increased pain perception and unnecessary analgesic use. This study aimed to explore the impact of cognitive reframing, employing comfort scores (CS) instead of pain scores (PS), on analgesic desire and usage in adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain.
Methods
In this randomized controlled trial, ED patients with abdominal pain were assigned to either the PS group (assessing pain using a pain score) or CS group (assessing comfort using an inverted pain score). In the CS group, explicit references to ’pain’ or ’discomfort’ were avoided. Desire for and use of analgesia were assessed at triage, 1 h post-entry, and at ED discharge. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney U test for CS vs. PS and the Chi-squared test for analgesia desire and patient satisfaction.
Results
Among the 496 included patients (36 % male, median age 52 (IQR 31–67) years), CS and PS groups showed similar characteristics and prehospital analgesic use. The PS group required slightly less morphine in dosage (PS: 0.05 mg/kg (0.03–0.07) vs. CS: 0.07 mg/kg (0.04–0.10), p = 0.03). CS scores were lower than PS scores, but only significant at 1 h post-entry (CS median (IQR): 5 (4–6) vs. PS 6 (4–7), p = 0.03). Baseline analgesic desire was lower in the CS group (45 % vs. 54 %, p = 0.06), with no differences in administered analgesic types. Treatment satisfaction did not differ between groups.
Conclusion
In this study using CS as opposed to PS did not affect the desire for or the use of opioids or other analgesia in adult patients with abdominal pain presenting at the ED. Although CS may be potentially useful, using it instead of PS as a tool for cognitive reframing is currently not supported in the uncontrolled clinical setting of the ED.
在临床环境中频繁使用“疼痛”一词与反安慰剂效应有关,可能导致疼痛感增加和不必要的止痛药使用。本研究旨在探讨认知重构的影响,采用舒适评分(CS)代替疼痛评分(PS),对成人腹痛急诊科(ED)的镇痛欲望和使用。方法在这项随机对照试验中,伴有腹痛的ED患者被分为PS组(使用疼痛评分评估疼痛)和CS组(使用反向疼痛评分评估舒适度)。在CS组,明确提到“疼痛”或“不适”是避免的。在分诊、入院后1小时和急诊科出院时评估镇痛的愿望和使用情况。统计分析包括CS与PS的Mann-Whitney U检验和镇痛欲望与患者满意度的卡方检验。结果纳入的496例患者(36%为男性,中位年龄52岁(IQR 31-67)岁)中,CS组和PS组在院前镇痛使用方面表现相似。PS组吗啡用量略低于CS组(0.05 mg/kg (0.04 ~ 0.10), p = 0.03)。CS评分低于PS评分,但仅在入组后1小时显著(CS中位数(IQR): 5 (4-6) vs PS 6 (4-7), p = 0.03)。CS组的基线镇痛欲望较低(45% vs. 54%, p = 0.06),给药类型无差异。治疗满意度在两组间无差异。结论:在本研究中,在急诊科出现腹痛的成年患者中,使用CS而不是PS并不会影响对阿片类药物或其他镇痛药物的使用。尽管CS可能有潜在的用途,但在急诊科不受控制的临床环境中,目前尚不支持使用CS代替PS作为认知重构的工具。
期刊介绍:
International Emergency Nursing is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to nurses and other professionals involved in emergency care. It aims to promote excellence through dissemination of high quality research findings, specialist knowledge and discussion of professional issues that reflect the diversity of this field. With an international readership and authorship, it provides a platform for practitioners worldwide to communicate and enhance the evidence-base of emergency care.
The journal publishes a broad range of papers, from personal reflection to primary research findings, created by first-time through to reputable authors from a number of disciplines. It brings together research from practice, education, theory, and operational management, relevant to all levels of staff working in emergency care settings worldwide.