Efficacy of an Acute Pain Titration Protocol Driven by Patient Response to a Simple Query: Do You Want More Pain Medication?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: We assess the efficacy of a simple pain titration protocol of 1-mg increments of intravenous hydromorphone, given at fixed intervals, driven solely by patient response to a yes/no question. Methods: This was a prospective interventional cohort study of nonelderly adults with acute severe pain defined asrequiring intravenous opioids in the judgment of the attending emergency physician. All patients received 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 30 minutes later were asked, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients responding yes received an additional 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone and were asked the same question 30minutes after receiving it. Those responding no did not receive additional opioid and were asked the question again 30minutes later. Each patient was queried 4 times. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving satisfactory pain control, defined as declining additional pain medication on 1 or more occasions. Results: Of 215 patients enrolled, there were 8 protocol violations, leaving 207 patients with analyzable data; 205 of207 patients (99%; 95% confidence interval 97% to 100%) achieved satisfactory analgesia at 1 or more points during the study. Nine patients desaturated below 95% on room air, 2 had respiratory rates less than 10 breaths/min, and 2had pulse rates less than 50 beats/min. No adverse events were associated with amount of hydromorphone received. Conclusion: A pain protocol, based on titration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone, driven solely by patient response to a simple standardized question repeated at intervals, resulted in achievement of satisfactory analgesia on at least 1occasion in 99% of patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Feb 3 2015

Fingerprint

Acute Pain
Hydromorphone
Pain
Analgesia
Opioid Analgesics
Respiratory Rate
Emergencies
Cohort Studies
Heart Rate
Air
Confidence Intervals
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

@article{37631fbb802e4761b3013378e40e98ff,
title = "Efficacy of an Acute Pain Titration Protocol Driven by Patient Response to a Simple Query: Do You Want More Pain Medication?",
abstract = "Study objective: We assess the efficacy of a simple pain titration protocol of 1-mg increments of intravenous hydromorphone, given at fixed intervals, driven solely by patient response to a yes/no question. Methods: This was a prospective interventional cohort study of nonelderly adults with acute severe pain defined asrequiring intravenous opioids in the judgment of the attending emergency physician. All patients received 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 30 minutes later were asked, {"}Do you want more pain medication?{"} Patients responding yes received an additional 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone and were asked the same question 30minutes after receiving it. Those responding no did not receive additional opioid and were asked the question again 30minutes later. Each patient was queried 4 times. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving satisfactory pain control, defined as declining additional pain medication on 1 or more occasions. Results: Of 215 patients enrolled, there were 8 protocol violations, leaving 207 patients with analyzable data; 205 of207 patients (99{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval 97{\%} to 100{\%}) achieved satisfactory analgesia at 1 or more points during the study. Nine patients desaturated below 95{\%} on room air, 2 had respiratory rates less than 10 breaths/min, and 2had pulse rates less than 50 beats/min. No adverse events were associated with amount of hydromorphone received. Conclusion: A pain protocol, based on titration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone, driven solely by patient response to a simple standardized question repeated at intervals, resulted in achievement of satisfactory analgesia on at least 1occasion in 99{\%} of patients.",
author = "Chang, {Andrew K.} and Bijur, {Polly E.} and Holden, {Lynne M.} and Gallagher, {E. John}",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.04.035",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of an Acute Pain Titration Protocol Driven by Patient Response to a Simple Query

T2 - Do You Want More Pain Medication?

AU - Chang, Andrew K.

AU - Bijur, Polly E.

AU - Holden, Lynne M.

AU - Gallagher, E. John

PY - 2015/2/3

Y1 - 2015/2/3

N2 - Study objective: We assess the efficacy of a simple pain titration protocol of 1-mg increments of intravenous hydromorphone, given at fixed intervals, driven solely by patient response to a yes/no question. Methods: This was a prospective interventional cohort study of nonelderly adults with acute severe pain defined asrequiring intravenous opioids in the judgment of the attending emergency physician. All patients received 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 30 minutes later were asked, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients responding yes received an additional 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone and were asked the same question 30minutes after receiving it. Those responding no did not receive additional opioid and were asked the question again 30minutes later. Each patient was queried 4 times. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving satisfactory pain control, defined as declining additional pain medication on 1 or more occasions. Results: Of 215 patients enrolled, there were 8 protocol violations, leaving 207 patients with analyzable data; 205 of207 patients (99%; 95% confidence interval 97% to 100%) achieved satisfactory analgesia at 1 or more points during the study. Nine patients desaturated below 95% on room air, 2 had respiratory rates less than 10 breaths/min, and 2had pulse rates less than 50 beats/min. No adverse events were associated with amount of hydromorphone received. Conclusion: A pain protocol, based on titration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone, driven solely by patient response to a simple standardized question repeated at intervals, resulted in achievement of satisfactory analgesia on at least 1occasion in 99% of patients.

AB - Study objective: We assess the efficacy of a simple pain titration protocol of 1-mg increments of intravenous hydromorphone, given at fixed intervals, driven solely by patient response to a yes/no question. Methods: This was a prospective interventional cohort study of nonelderly adults with acute severe pain defined asrequiring intravenous opioids in the judgment of the attending emergency physician. All patients received 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone and 30 minutes later were asked, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients responding yes received an additional 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone and were asked the same question 30minutes after receiving it. Those responding no did not receive additional opioid and were asked the question again 30minutes later. Each patient was queried 4 times. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving satisfactory pain control, defined as declining additional pain medication on 1 or more occasions. Results: Of 215 patients enrolled, there were 8 protocol violations, leaving 207 patients with analyzable data; 205 of207 patients (99%; 95% confidence interval 97% to 100%) achieved satisfactory analgesia at 1 or more points during the study. Nine patients desaturated below 95% on room air, 2 had respiratory rates less than 10 breaths/min, and 2had pulse rates less than 50 beats/min. No adverse events were associated with amount of hydromorphone received. Conclusion: A pain protocol, based on titration of 1 mg intravenous hydromorphone, driven solely by patient response to a simple standardized question repeated at intervals, resulted in achievement of satisfactory analgesia on at least 1occasion in 99% of patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930689836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930689836&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.04.035

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.04.035

M3 - Article

C2 - 26074387

AN - SCOPUS:84930689836

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

ER -