Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWinter, S.
dc.contributor.authorJootun, R.
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-23T11:38:42Z
dc.date.available2019-09-23T11:38:42Z
dc.date.issued2017-05
dc.identifier.citationWinter, S. and Jootun, R., 2017. Audit of morphine administration by East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS). BMJ Open, 7 (Suppl. 3), A3-A4.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.9
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12417/264
dc.description.abstractAim For pre-hospital administration of morphine, JRCALC guidelines recommend recorded pain scores (PS) out of ten before and after use, an anti-emetic adjunct and ENTONOX provision prior to analgesic effect. This audit aimed to gain insight into how rigorously these guidelines were being adhered to in practice Methods This clinical audit examined patients who had been administered morphine by EMAS staff. Inclusion criteria were patients who had received documented oral, intravenous or intramuscular morphine within a three-month period. Those who declined morphine were excluded. Data extracted from the patient report forms included: patient demographics; documented PSs; morphine doses and routes; adjunct analgesics and use of anti-emetics. This information was used to determine how appropriately PSs, analgesic adjuncts and antiemetics were being used alongside morphine. Results There were 293 patients included in the audit. 205 (70.0%) had a PS documented before and after morphine administration; 50 (17.1%) had one documented PS and 38 (13.0%) had none. 58 (19.8%) patients received ENTONOX before the administration of morphine and 17 (5.8%) received it after morphine. 218 (74.4%) had no record of ENTONOX administration and only 100 (34.1%) patients were prescribed an anti-emetic with morphine. Conclusion There is potential for improved adherence to JRCALC guidelines through increased awareness and education. We will trial this at EMAS through staff notices followed by a re-audit in 4–6 months. Ideally, audits within other ambulance services with more patients would be undertaken for widespread quality improvement. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/7/Suppl_3/A3.3.full.pdf This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.9
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEmergency Medical Servicesen_US
dc.subjectMorphineen_US
dc.subjectPainen_US
dc.subjectPain Managementen_US
dc.subjectDrug Therapyen_US
dc.titleAudit of morphine administration by East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS)en_US
dc.typeConference Paper/Proceeding/Abstract
dc.source.journaltitleBMJ Openen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-08-22
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-08-22
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
refterms.dateFirstOnline2017-05
html.description.abstractAim For pre-hospital administration of morphine, JRCALC guidelines recommend recorded pain scores (PS) out of ten before and after use, an anti-emetic adjunct and ENTONOX provision prior to analgesic effect. This audit aimed to gain insight into how rigorously these guidelines were being adhered to in practice Methods This clinical audit examined patients who had been administered morphine by EMAS staff. Inclusion criteria were patients who had received documented oral, intravenous or intramuscular morphine within a three-month period. Those who declined morphine were excluded. Data extracted from the patient report forms included: patient demographics; documented PSs; morphine doses and routes; adjunct analgesics and use of anti-emetics. This information was used to determine how appropriately PSs, analgesic adjuncts and antiemetics were being used alongside morphine. Results There were 293 patients included in the audit. 205 (70.0%) had a PS documented before and after morphine administration; 50 (17.1%) had one documented PS and 38 (13.0%) had none. 58 (19.8%) patients received ENTONOX before the administration of morphine and 17 (5.8%) received it after morphine. 218 (74.4%) had no record of ENTONOX administration and only 100 (34.1%) patients were prescribed an anti-emetic with morphine. Conclusion There is potential for improved adherence to JRCALC guidelines through increased awareness and education. We will trial this at EMAS through staff notices followed by a re-audit in 4–6 months. Ideally, audits within other ambulance services with more patients would be undertaken for widespread quality improvement. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/7/Suppl_3/A3.3.full.pdf This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.9en_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record