TY - JOUR
T1 - Identifying values and preferences around the choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain in emergency and prehospital settings
T2 - using group concept mapping methodology
AU - Nielsen, Kristina Tomra
AU - Rasmussen, Marianne Uggen
AU - Overgaard, Anders Foehrby
AU - Klokker, Louise
AU - Christensen, Robin
AU - Wæhrens, Eva Ejlersen
N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
PY - 2020/3/10
Y1 - 2020/3/10
N2 - Objectives The main study aim was to examine the applicability of a novel method to assess the criterion of values and preferences within the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision framework. The group concept mapping (GCM) approach was applied to identify, organise and prioritise values and preferences in the example of health professionals' choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain. Setting Prehospital and emergency care centres in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. Participants Acute care health professionals with qualifications to administer analgesic agents to patients in emergency and prehospital settings, including advanced ambulance assistants, rescue officers, paramedics, emergency physicians and emergency nurses, participated in an online survey in which statements were generated (n=40) and structured (n=11) and finally analysed and interpreted in a validation meeting (n=4). Results Using GCM, ideas were generated and structured through online participation. Results were interpreted at a validation meeting. In total, 111 unique ideas were identified and organised into seven clusters: drug profile, administration, context, health professionals' preferences and logistics, safety profile, patient's medical history and acute clinical situation. Conclusions Based on GCM, a conceptual model was developed, and values and preferences around choice of analgesia in emergency care were revealed. Health professionals within acute care can apply the conceptual model to support their decision-making when choosing the best available treatment for pain for their patients in emergency care.
AB - Objectives The main study aim was to examine the applicability of a novel method to assess the criterion of values and preferences within the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision framework. The group concept mapping (GCM) approach was applied to identify, organise and prioritise values and preferences in the example of health professionals' choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain. Setting Prehospital and emergency care centres in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. Participants Acute care health professionals with qualifications to administer analgesic agents to patients in emergency and prehospital settings, including advanced ambulance assistants, rescue officers, paramedics, emergency physicians and emergency nurses, participated in an online survey in which statements were generated (n=40) and structured (n=11) and finally analysed and interpreted in a validation meeting (n=4). Results Using GCM, ideas were generated and structured through online participation. Results were interpreted at a validation meeting. In total, 111 unique ideas were identified and organised into seven clusters: drug profile, administration, context, health professionals' preferences and logistics, safety profile, patient's medical history and acute clinical situation. Conclusions Based on GCM, a conceptual model was developed, and values and preferences around choice of analgesia in emergency care were revealed. Health professionals within acute care can apply the conceptual model to support their decision-making when choosing the best available treatment for pain for their patients in emergency care.
KW - occupational therapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081700150&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031863
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031863
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 32161154
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 10
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 3
M1 - e031863
ER -