Acute pain service audit

Wigfull, J.; Welchew, E. A.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.0811f.x

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Acute pain service staff must be available 24 h per day, 7 days per week to provide timely response to problems, including inadequate analgesia and side effects and complications of analgesia and to evaluate and manage new patient referrals .…”

Section: The Ideal Acute Pain Servicementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a pediatric pain service

Kost‐Byerly

Chalkiadis

2012

Pediatric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pediatric pain services were first established in larger pediatric centers over two decades ago. Children's acute pain was poorly managed at the time owing to misconceptions, safety concerns, and variability in practice. While many larger pediatric centers now have acute pain services, there remains a need for better pain management in facilities and geographic locations with fewer resources. Institutional acknowledgement and desire to change, appropriate staffing, and funding are major obstacles. Better recognition and assessment as well safer and more efficacious treatment of pain are the principal objectives when establishing a pain service. It is important to determine whether the proposed service intends to treat acute, chronic, procedural, and/or cancer and palliative pain as each requires different skills and resources. An ideal and comprehensive pediatric pain service should be equipped to diagnose and treat acute, persistent (chronic), procedural, and cancer/palliative pain. It is not feasible or necessary for every hospital to manage all. Establishing the scope of practice (based on case mix and caseload) in any given hospital will determine which resources are desired. Country-specific standards, local staffing, and fiscal constraints will influence which resources are available.

show abstract

Section: The Ideal Acute Pain Servicementioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a pediatric pain service

Kost‐Byerly

Chalkiadis

2012

Pediatric Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Survey of 1057 patients receiving postoperative patient‐controlled epidural analgesia

Wigfull

Welchew

2001

Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAcute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring is widely used as an index of illness severity, for outcome prediction, in research protocols and to assess intensive care unit performance and quality of care. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the reliability and validity of APACHE II scores generated in everyday clinical practice. We retrospectively re-assessed APACHE II scores from the charts of 186 randomly selected patients admitted to our medical and surgical intensive care units. These`new' scores were compared with the original scores calculated by the attending physician. We found that most scores calculated retrospectively were lower than the original scores; 51% of our patients would have received a lower score, 26% a higher score and only 23% would have remained unchanged. Overall, the original scores changed by an average of 6.4 points. We identified various sources of error and concluded that wide variability exists in APACHE II scoring in everyday clinical practice, with the score being generally overestimated. Accurate use of the APACHE II scoring system requires adherence to strict guidelines and regular training of medical staff using the system. [4] are used widely in most intensive care units (ICUs). They are used not only as an index of illness severity and outcome prediction, but also to assess clinical performance and quality of care [5, 6]. The APACHE II score is the most frequently used scoring system and has become an important tool in efforts to improve effective use of intensive care [7±11]. In addition, it is often used in research protocols to ascertain that different treatment groups are comparable.Despite its widespread use in ICUs, little is known about the reliability and validity of the APACHE II scoring system in everyday medical practice. We reported that there was wide interobserver variation in the application of the APACHE II score when a group of doctors (residents and intensivists) assessed the same patient [12]. Chen et al.[13] studied interobserver variability and variability in data collection in a number of community and teaching hospitals; they reported that revised mortality predictions were similar to the original [13]. However, their study did not discuss in detail the specific sources of error and problems in APACHE II scoring.This study was designed to: (i) assess the accuracy of APACHE II scoring in a medical and surgical ICU; (ii) assess the influence of the method of data collection, manual or via a patient data management system (PDMS), on accuracy and overall variability in scoring; (iii) specifically identify and discuss sources of error and q 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd 47 confusion; and (iv) provide suggestions on how to decrease variability. MethodsThe charts of 64 patients admitted to the medical ICU and 122 patients admitted to the surgical ICU over a 6-month period were randomly selected. APACHE II scores are assessed routinely in all patients admitted to the ICU within 2 days of admission. In the medical ICU...

show abstract

Acute pain service audit

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Developing a pediatric pain service

Developing a pediatric pain service

Survey of 1057 patients receiving postoperative patient‐controlled epidural analgesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About