RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Applying Topical Anesthetic on Pediatric Lacerations in the Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Project
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.06.21260013
DO 10.1101/2021.07.06.21260013
A1 Faris, Nagham
A1 Mesto, Mohamad
A1 Mrad, Sandra
A1 Kebbi, Ola El
A1 Asi, Noor
A1 Sawaya, Rasha D.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/07/2021.07.06.21260013.abstract
AB Background Caring for pediatric lacerations in the Emergency Department (ED) is typically painful because of irrigation and suturing. To improve this painful experience, we aimed to increase the use of a topical anesthetic, Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics (EMLA) on eligible pediatric lacerations with an attainable, sustainable, and measurable goal of 60%.Local Problem The baseline rate of applying topical anesthetic to eligible lacerations was 23% in our ED. We aimed to increase the use of topical anesthetics on eligible pediatric lacerations to a measurable goal of 60% within 3 months of implementing our intervention.Methods We conducted a prospective, single center, interrupted time series, ED quality improvement project from November 2019 to July 2020. A multidisciplinary team of physicians and nurses performed a cause-and-effect analysis identifying two key drivers: early placement of EMLA and physician buy-in on which we built our Plan, Do, Study, and Act (PDSA) cycles. We collected data on number of eligible patients receiving EMLA, as well as patient and physician feedback via phone calls within 2 days post encounter. Balancing measures included ED length of stay (LOS), patient and physician satisfaction with EMLA, and side effects of EMLA.Results We needed 3 PDSA cycles to reach our goal of 60% in 3 months, which was also maintained for 5 months. PDSA cycles used educational interventions, direct provider feedback about non-compliance and patient satisfaction results obtained via phone calls. Balancing measures were minimally impacted: 75% good patient satisfaction, No adverse events but an increase in LOS of patients who received EMLA compared to those who did not (1.79 ± 0.66 VS 1.41 ± 0.83 hours, p<0.001). The main reasons for dissatisfaction for physicians were the increased LOS and the preference for procedural sedation or intranasal medications.Conclusion With a few simple interventions, our aim of applying EMLA to 60% of eligible pediatric lacerations was attained and maintained.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis quality improvement project received no funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board at the American University of Beirut granted us an exemption from revision since the study is a Quality Improvement Project.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData was extracted from electronic patient charts.