The quality of procedural analgesia and sedation among trauma patients has not been studied much in the prehospital setting. The main objective of this study was to characterize the quality of procedural analgesia sedation practices in prehospital settings in trauma patients. This was an open-label observational prospective multicenter study (January 01, 2012-December 31, 2013). We included all consecutive trauma victims undergoing a potentially painful procedure on the accident scene. The primary endpoint was the procedural pain intensity. Data for 210 patients aged 11 to 98 years were analyzed. The most common lesions were limb fractures or dislocations. The most common procedures were limb realignment and splinting. Overall, 25 different drug combinations [with paracetamol [acetaminophen], non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nefopam, opioids, loco-regional anesthesia, Equimolar Mixture of Oxygen/Nitrous Oxide (EMONO), sedative drugs] were used by the emergency medical services (EMS). One hundred seventeen patients (55%) received either one or two sedative drugs (among ketamine, propofol, and midazolam), 171 patients (81%) received morphine that was combined with a sedative drug in 54% of cases. During the procedure, 95 patients, 45% [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 39-52] experienced intense to severe pain. Among patients who received sedative drugs, 27% (32/117) had intense to severe pain vs. 68% (63/93) in patients who did not, that is, 40% difference [95% CI 33.8-47.0]. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 18 adverse events of which 6 were respiratory adverse events. A deep sedation occurred in 17 patients. No center had any specific protocols for procedural sedation analgesia. Procedural sedation-analgesia was inadequate in almost half of the trauma patients in the out-of-hospital setting. The reasons of these failures were probably multiple. The non-administration of a sedative drug despite an indication or non-adapted doses, in the context of a lack of specific protocols, was certainly one of them.

Restraint is often used when administering procedures to children. However, no metrologically scale to measure the restraint intensity had yet been validated. This study validated the metrological criteria of a scale measuring the restraint intensity, Procedural Restraint Intensity in Children (PRIC), used during procedures in children. The PRIC scale performance was measured by a group of 7 health professionals working in a children's hospital, by watching 20 videos of health care procedures. This group included 2 physicians, 1 pediatric resident, and 4 nurses. The intra-class correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the inter-rater and test-retest reliability and the construct validity with the correlation between PRIC scale and a numerical rating scale. One hundred and forty measurements were made. Inter-rater and test-retest correlation coefficients were 0.98 and 0.98, respectively. The 2 scales were positively correlated with a Spearman coefficient of 0.93. This study validated the Procedural Restraint Intensity in Children (PRIC) scale in metrological terms with some limitation. However, there is not gold standard scale to precisely validate the reliability of this tool and this study has been conducted in "experimental" conditions. Nevertheless, this is the first scale measuring the intensity of physical restraint with a metrological validation. The next step will be to validate it in real clinical situations.

Recent data suggest that 10–20% of injury patients will suffer for several months after the event from diverse symptoms, generally referred to as post-concussion-like symptoms (PCLS), which will lead to a decline in quality of life. A preliminary randomized control trial suggested that this condition may be induced by the stress experienced during the event or emergency room (ER) stay and can be prevented in up to 75% of patients with a single, early, short eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) psychotherapeutic session delivered in the ER. The protocol of the SOFTER 3 study was designed to compare the impact on 3-month PCLS of early EMDR intervention and usual care in patients presenting at the ER. Secondary outcomes included 3-month post-traumatic stress disorder, 12-month PCLS, self-reported stress at the ER, self-assessed recovery expectation at discharge and 3 months, and self-reported chronic pain at discharge and 3 months. This is a two-group, open-label, multicenter, comparative, randomized controlled trial with 3- and 12-month phone follow-up for reports of persisting symptoms (PCLS and post-traumatic stress disorder). Those eligible for inclusion were adults (≥18 years old) presenting at the ER departments of the University Hospital of Bordeaux and University Hospital of Lyon, assessed as being at high risk of PCLS using a three-item scoring rule. The intervention groups were a (1) EMDR Recent Traumatic Episode Protocol intervention performed by a trained psychologist during ER stay or (2) usual care. The number of patients to be enrolled in each group was 223 to evidence a 15% decrease in PCLS prevalence in the EMDR group. In 2012, the year of the last national survey in France, 10.6 million people attended the ER, some of whom did so several times since 18 million visits were recorded in the same year. The SOFTER 3 study therefore addresses a major public health challenge. Clinical Trials. NCT03400813 . Registered 17 January 2018 – retrospectively registered.

Background/Objectives: Very few studies describe the various feelings experienced in the emergency department (ED). Our study describes the pain, stress, and negative and positive emotions experienced by patients admitted to the ED in relation to age, gender, and reason for ED admission. Methods: Patients admitted to the ED of seven French hospitals were surveyed as part of the randomised multicentre study SOFTER IV (n = 2846). They reported the intensity of their pain on a numerical rating scale of 0 to 10, the intensity of their stress on an equivalent scale, and their emotions on a five-point rating scale using an adapted version of the Geneva Emotion Wheel proposed by Scherer, based on eight core emotions: fear, anger, regret, sadness, relief, interest, joy, and satisfaction. Results: Patients reported an average pain rating of 4.5 (SD = 3.0) and an average stress rating of 3.4 (SD = 3.1). Forty-six percent reported at least one strong negative emotion, and the two most frequently reported were fear and sadness. Forty-seven percent of patients described feeling at least one strong positive emotion, and the two most frequently reported were interest and relief. Pain was significantly higher among female patients under 60 admitted for injury. Stress was significantly higher among female patients under 60 admitted for illness. Emotions of negative valency were significantly higher among women admitted for injury. Emotions of positive valency were significantly higher among men over 60 admitted for illness. Conclusions: Experiences of pain, stress, and emotions have a strong presence in the ED. The reporting of these feelings varies depending on age, gender, and reason for ED admission.