4.5 Article

Prevalence and treatment of pain in EDs in the United States, 2000 to 2010

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 421-431

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.01.015

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [RO1 HS0189960]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To describe changes in the prevalence and severity of pain and prescribing of non-opioid analgesics in US emergency departments (EDs) from 2000 to 2010. Methods: Analysis of serial cross-sectional data regarding ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Visits were limited to patients >= 18 years old without malignancy. Outcome measures included annual volume of visits among adults with a primary symptom or diagnosis of pain, annual rates of patient-reported pain severity, and predictors of non-opioid receipt for non-malignant pain. Results: Rates of pain remained stable, representing approximately 45% of visits from 2000 through 2010. Patients reported pain as their primary symptom twice as often as providers reported a primary pain diagnosis (40% vs 20%). The percentage of patients reporting severe pain increased from 25% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 22%-27%) in 2003 to 40% (CI 37%-42%) in 2008. From 2000 to 2010, the proportion of pain visits treated with pharmacotherapies increased from 56% (CI 53%-58%) to 71% (CI 69%-72%), although visits treated exclusively with non-opioids decreased 21% from 28% (CI 27%-30%) to 22% (CI 20%-23%). The adjusted odds of non-opioid rather than opioid receipt were greater among visits for patients 18 to 24 years old (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, CI 1.24-1.46), receiving fewer medicines (OR 2.91, CI 2.70-3.15) and those with a diagnosis of mental illness (OR 2.24, CI 1.99-2.52). Conclusions: Large increases in opioid utilization in EDs have coincided with reductions in the use of non-opioid analgesics and an unchanging prevalence of pain among patients. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据