Oral Paracetamol Versus Combination Oral Analgesics for Acute Musculoskeletal Injuries.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare paracetamol with a combination of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and codeine for pain relief in acute minor musculoskeletal injuries. METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-arm study at an urban tertiary hospital emergency department. Participants were aged 18 to 65 years and had acute (<48 hours) closed limb or trunk injuries with moderate pain (greater than 3/10). A single dose of 1 g of paracetamol, 400 mg of ibuprofen, and 60 mg of codeine was compared with a single dose of 1 g of paracetamol, placebo ibuprofen, and placebo codeine. The minimum detectable difference in pain was taken as 1.3. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and pain were similar. There were clinically detectable reductions in pain at rest at 60 minutes for paracetamol: -1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.2 to -1.1); n=59 and the combination -2.0; 95% CI -2.5 to -1; n=59; difference -0.4; 95% CI -1.1 to 0.29; P=.26. At 120 minutes, the reduction in pain was -2.4; 95% CI -3.2 to -1.6 for paracetamol (n=30) and -2.9; 95% CI -3.7 to -2.2 for the combination (n=35); difference -0.5; 95% CI -1.6 to 0.5; P=.32. Rescue analgesia was required by 4 of 59 patients in the paracetamol group and 5 of 60 in the combination group (P>.99). More participants in the combination group had adverse events: 14 of 60 versus 5 of 59 in the paracetamol group, relative risk 2.8; 95% CI 1.1 to 7.2. No adverse events were serious. CONCLUSION: Combining oral paracetamol, ibuprofen, and codeine as the initial treatment for pain associated with acute musculoskeletal injuries was not superior to paracetamol alone for pain reduction at 60 minutes or need for rescue analgesia, with more adverse events in the combination group.

Emergency nurse practitioners: do they provide an effective service in managing minor injuries, compared to emergency medicine registrars?

AIM: To determine whether emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) are as equivalent to emergency medicine (EM) registrars in minor injury management in a New Zealand environment. METHOD: A Prospective observational audit (chart review) of a non-consecutive cohort of patients with minor trauma was conducted. The primary outcome measure was length of stay. The secondary outcome measures were: time waiting to be seen, number of unexpected returns, missed injury rate and the number of patients who left the department without being seen. Data was analysed using standard statistical methods using Statview v5.0 (SAS) software. RESULTS: 420 patients were included; ENP group n=305, EM registrar group n=115.The ENPs, saw more males (70% versus 59%, p=0.03), younger (30 years versus 41 years, p=0.0004) and lower acuity patients (p<0.0001). After adjustment for age, gender and acuity, median ED length of stay was longer in EM registrar group by 40 minutes, p<0.0001, and the time to be seen was longer in the EM registrar group by 36 minutes, p<0.0001. Treatment times were equivalent. The missed fracture rate was 1% in both groups. The unexpected return rate was 2% in the ENP group and 1% in the EM registrar group. Left without being seen rate was 5%. CONCLUSION: ENPs appear to "sign on" to see minor injury patients faster than EM registrars, which may account for the reduced length of stay for ENP treated patients.

A time for international standards?: comparing the Emergency Nurse Practitioner role in the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

The aim of this paper is to compare the Emergency Nurse Practitioner (ENP) role in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Whilst geographically distant, the role of the ENP within these three countries shares fundamental similarities, causing us to question, is this a time to implement international standards for the role? The ENP role in all three countries is gradually establishing itself, yet there are shared concerns over how the role is regulated and deficits in standardisation of scope of practice and educational level. Together these issues generate confusion over what the ENP role embodies. One method of demystifying the ENP role would be to progress towards international standards for regulation, education and core components of practice.