Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Procedural sedation and recall in the emergency department: the relationship between depth of sedation and patient recall and satisfaction (a pilot study)
  1. Jennifer A Freeston1,
  2. Alexis Leal2,
  3. Alasdair Gray1
  1. 1Emergency Medicine Research Group, Edinburgh, Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
  2. 2Southeast Scotland Emergency Medicine Training Scheme, Emergency Medicine Research Group, Edinburgh, Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jennifer A Freeston, Emergency Medicine Research Group, Edinburgh, Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 Scotland, UK; jenniferfreeston{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of patient recall and its relationship between sedation depth, pain and patient satisfaction in a sample of patients receiving procedural sedation in the emergency department. Recall, pain and patient satisfaction were measured on a scale of 0–10 and sedation depth a scale of 1–4 (American Society of Anesthesiologists sedation scale). Spearman's correlation test showed sedation depth was significantly related to recall (Spearman's ρ = −0.511, p<0.05) specifically with midazolam use (ρ = −0.857, p<0.01). Increased recall was associated with higher pain scores (ρ = 0.683, p<0.001) and lower patient satisfaction (ρ = −0.785, p<0.001).

  • Emergency medicine
  • procedural sedation
  • mental recall
  • pain
  • anaesthesia

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the University of Edinburgh.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.