Paramedic PapersHome Pain & sedation Procedural sedation consensus: oversight & quality
Pain & sedation
Procedural sedation consensus: oversight & quality
Unscheduled Procedural Sedation Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Guidelines, Part 1: Principles, Oversight, and Quality Monitoring
Annals of Emergency Medicine · Added 24 August 2026
Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus guidelines covering principles, oversight, and quality monitoring for unscheduled procedural sedation.
- Study type
- Guideline / statement
- Design
- Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus guidelines
- Participants
- Not reported
- Bottom line
- Context only
Why it matters in Australia (Low relevance). ACEP policy document — US-focused, but offers a framework Australian services may reference when reviewing sedation protocols.
Learning goal
Strengthen my judgement on oversight and quality monitoring when providing unscheduled procedural sedation.
More
- Topic: Pain & sedation
- Daily scan: 24 August 2026
Related papers on Pain & sedation
-
Low analgesia rates in sickle cell EMS pain
US nationwide cross-section of 10,023 9-1-1 ALS encounters for sickle cell disease complications in 2023 — pain scores documented in 73% but only 13.5% received any analgesia (11.7% opioids), and among patients scoring ≥7/10, contact times ≥20 min were associated with roughly five-fold more IV access and ten-fold more analgesia/opioid administration.
-
IV magnesium adds little for ED headache
RCT of 1,028 ED patients with acute nontraumatic headache found IV magnesium sulfate plus paracetamol achieved more frequent treatment success (78.9% vs 65.1%) but pain score differences were below clinical importance thresholds, with less rescue analgesia needed but more mild side effects.
-
Procedural sedation consensus: clinical practice
Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus guidelines covering clinical practice for unscheduled procedural sedation.
-
Intranasal equals subcutaneous ketamine for pain
RCT testing whether intranasal ketamine is non-inferior to subcutaneous for acute traumatic pain — both routes provided equivalent analgesia with minimal clinically important differences, though minor adverse events were more common with subcutaneous administration.