CJEM Articles: pain

Displaying 1-2 of 2 results

  • September 2010 12 5
    Ian Michael Ball, Jamie Seabrook, Larry Allen, Nimesh Desai, Scott Anderson

    Objective: Dogma discourages the provision of topical anesthetics to patients with corneal injuries discharged from the emergency department because of the toxicity of concentrated solutions. We compared the analgesic efficacy of dilute topical proparacaine with placebo in emergency department patients with acute corneal injuries.

    Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of adults with corneal injuries presenting to one of 2 tertiary care emergency departments in London, Ont. Patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either 0.05% proparacaine or placebo drops as outpatients and were followed up to healing by a single ophthalmologist. Our primary outcome was pain reduction as measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale.

    Results: Fifteen participants from the proparacaine group and 18 participants from the placebo group completed the study. The mean age of the patients was 38.7 (standard deviation 12.3) years and the majority were male (85%). Pain reduction was significantly better in the proparacaine group than in the placebo group, with a median improvement of 3.9 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.5–5.1) cm on the visual analog scale versus a median improvement of 0.6 (IQR 0.2–2.0) cm (p = 0.007). The proparacaine group was more satisfied (median level of satisfaction 8.0 [IQR 6.0–9.0] cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale v. 2.6 [IQR 1.0–8.0] cm, p = 0.027). There were no ocular complications or signs of delayed wound healing in either group.

    Conclusion: Dilute topical proparacaine is an efficacious analgesic for acute corneal injuries. Although no adverse events were observed in our study population, larger studies are required to evaluate safety.

  • July 2002 4 4
    Connie Chen, Edward P. Sloan, Knox H. Todd, Kyle Wamstad, Stephen Eder

    Objective: The underuse of analgesics, or "oligoanalgesia," is common in emergency departments (EDs). To improve care we must understand our patients' pain experiences as well as our clinical practice patterns. To this end, we examined pain etiology, pain management practices and patient satisfaction in 2 urban EDs.
    Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using structured interviews and chart reviews for patients with pain who presented to either of 2 university-affiliated EDs. We assessed pain etiologies, patient pain experiences, pain management practices, and patient satisfaction with pain management.
    Results: The 525 study subjects reported high pain intensity levels on presentation, with a median rating of 8 on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS). At discharge, pain severity had decreased to a median rating of 4; however, 48% of patients were discharged from the ED in moderate to severe pain (NRS 5-10). Subjects reported spending 57% of their ED stay in moderate to severe pain. Analgesics were administered to only 50% of patients. The mean time to analgesic administration was almost 2 hours. Despite high levels of reported pain at discharge and low rates of analgesic administration, subjects reported high satisfaction with pain management.
    Conclusions: In the 2 EDs studied, we found high levels of pain severity for our patients, as well as low levels of analgesic use. When used, analgesic administration was often delayed. Despite these findings, patient satisfaction remained high. Despite recent efforts to improve pain management practice; oligoanalgesia remains a problem for our specialty.