RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review aimed to evaluate the association between childhood maltreatment and chronic pain, with specific attention to the temporal nature of the relationship and putative moderators, including, the nature (type), timing of occurrence, and magnitude of maltreatment; whether physical harm or injury occurred; and whether post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) subsequently developed. METHOD: We included studies that measured the prospective relationship between child maltreatment and pain. Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched electronically up to 28 July 2019. We used accepted methodological procedures common to prognosis studies and preregistered our review (PROSPERO record ID 142169) as per Cochrane review recommendations. RESULTS: Nine studies (17,340 participants) were included in the present review. Baseline participant age ranged from 2 years to more than 65 years. Follow-up intervals ranged from one year to 16 years. Of the nine studies included, three were deemed to have a high risk of bias. With the exception of one meta-analysis of three studies, results were combined using narrative synthesis. Results showed low to very low quality and conflicting evidence across the various types of maltreatment, with the higher quality studies pointing to the absence of direct (non-moderated and non-mediated) associations between maltreatment and pain. PTSD was revealed to be a potential mediator and/or moderator. Evidence was not found for other proposed moderators. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is an absence of evidence from high quality studies of an association between maltreatment and pain. Our results are limited by the small number of studies reporting the relationship between child maltreatment and pain using a prospective design. High quality studies, including prospective cohort studies and those that assess and report on the moderators described above, are needed to advance the literature.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Emergency department efficiency is a priority across Canada. In the United States, scribes may increase the number of patients seen per hour per physician; however, Canadian data are lacking. We sought to implement scribes in a Canadian emergency department with the hypothesis that scribes would increase the number of patients seen per hour per physician. METHODS: We conducted a 4-month quality improvement pilot study in a community emergency department in Ottawa, Ontario. Data collection began January 2015 after scribe training. Physicians received shifts with and without a scribe for a period of 4 months. Across the study, the mean number of patients seen per hour was determined for each physician during shifts with and without a scribe. We compared mean (± standard deviation [SD]) number of patients seen per hour based on presence or absence of a scribe by 2-tailed paired-samples t test. RESULTS: Eleven scribes participated and ranged in age from 18 to 23 years. Twenty-two full- or part-time emergency physicians were followed. We documented 463 physician-hours without use of a scribe and 693.75 physician-hours with use of a scribe. Across all 22 physicians, 18 (81.8%) saw more patients per hour with use of a scribe. Overall, the number of patients seen per hour per physician was significantly greater (+12.9%) during shifts with a scribe (mean [± SD] 2.81 [± 0.78]) than during shifts without a scribe (mean [± SD] 2.49 [± 0.60]; p = 0.006). INTERPRETATION: In this pilot study, the use of scribes resulted in an increased number of patients seen per hour per physician. Because this was a small study at a single centre, further research on the effects of scribes in Canada is warranted.