↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of pain in a Norwegian Emergency Department

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of pain in a Norwegian Emergency Department
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13049-015-0166-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jostein Dale, Lars Petter Bjørnsen

Abstract

Although pain management is a fundamental aspect of care in emergency departments (EDs), inadequate treatment of pain is unfortunately common. There are multiple local protocols for pain assessment in the ED. This study evaluated whether the initial assessment and treatment of pain in the ED are in accordance with the in-hospital protocol of the ED at a Norwegian University Hospital. Prospective data on pain assessment and initial treatment in the ED were collected from nursing and physician documentation. The patients' perceptions of subjective pain were recorded using a numerical rating scale (NRS) that ranged from 0 to 10. Seventy-seven percent of the 764 enrolled patients were evaluated for pain at arrival. Female patients had a higher probability of not being asked about pain, but there was no difference in the percentage of patients asked about pain with respect to age. Additionally, patients with low oxygen saturation and systolic blood pressure were less likely to be asked about pain. Of those with moderate and severe pain (58 %), only 14 % received pain relief. Assessment and treatment of pain in the ED are inadequate and not in line with the local protocols. A focus on strategies to improve pain treatment in the ED is a necessary aspect of developing optimal acute patient care in Norway in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Philosophy 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2016.
All research outputs
#6,903,483
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#606
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,098
of 284,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#11
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.