To describe pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians' reported pain management practices across Canada and explore factors that facilitate or hinder pain management.

This study was a prospective survey of Canadian pediatric emergency physicians. The Pediatric Emergency Research Canada physician database was used to identify participants, and a modified Dillman's Total Design Survey Method was used for recruitment.

The survey response rate was 68% (139 of 206). Most physicians were 31 to 50 years old (82%) with PEM training (56%) and had been in practice for less than 10 years (55%). Almost all pain screening in emergency departments (EDs) occurred at triage (97%). Twenty-four percent of physicians noted institutionally mandated pain score documentation. Ibuprofen and acetaminophen were commonly prescribed in the ED for mild to moderate pain (88% and 83%, respectively). Over half of urinary catheterizations (60%) and intravenous (53%) starts were performed without any analgesia. The most common nonpharmacologic interventions used for infants and children were pacifiers and distraction, respectively. Training background and gender of physicians affected the likelihood of using nonpharmacologic interventions. Physicians noted time restraints to be the greatest barrier to optimal pain management (55%) and desired improved access to pain medications (32%), better policies and procedures (30%), and further education (25%).

When analgesia was reported as provided, ibuprofen and acetaminophen were most commonly used. Both procedural and presenting pain remained suboptimally managed. There is a substantial evidence practice gap in children's ED pain management, highlighting the need for further knowledge translation strategies and policies to support optimal treatment.

The RAPID approach (Resuscitation, Analgesia and assessment, Patient needs, Interventions, Disposition) was developed as an approach to managing emergency department patients. It is a mental checklist to help trainees provide comprehensive care, addressing issues in priority. Its impact on trainee performance has not been assessed.

Forty-two clerkship students were enrolled, with 21 students in each group. They received or did not receive the teaching intervention on an alternate basis. Students were assessed through daily encounter cards, a case presentation, a self-assessment form, a prerotation case (case E), and a sixcase short-answer exit examination (cases A to F) with case E repeated. Case E was designed specifically to assess students’ ability to provide comprehensive care. Fourteen students participated in focus groups.

Students in the intervention group had significantly higher exit examination case E scores (11.67 of 14 v. 10.26 of 14, p 5 0.008) and improvement in their case E scores from pre- to postrotation (1.82 v. 0.26, p 5 0.006). There were no significant differences in the other outcome measures. Intervention group students made positive comments around analgesia, addressing nonmedical needs and counseling on health promotion during focus groups.

Students exposed to the RAPID approach at the start of their emergency medicine rotation performed better on the one component of the written examination for which it was designed to improve performance. Students found it to be a useful mental checklist for comprehensive care, possibly addressing the hidden curriculum. Emergency medicine educators should consider further study and careful implementation of the RAPID approach.

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.

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.

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.

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.