The Strongest Evidence, Not the Easiest: Appraising What Is Known About Speeding Pain Treatment for Sickle Cell Crises in the Emergency Department
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR5033: Advanced Nursing and Practice II
Module 2 Assignment
Instructor Name
July 12, 2027
What Counts as Strong Here
The question from the first module is how to shorten the wait between triage and a first opioid for adults arriving with a sickle cell pain crisis, and in doing so improve pain control and reduce admissions. The easiest sources to find were a nursing blog describing one hospital's sickle cell protocol, several continuing education modules and a trade magazine article about individualized care plans. They were readable and practical, and none of them reported data or described how their recommendations were developed. They were set aside, not because they were wrong but because a change affecting opioid prescribing for a vulnerable group needs evidence that can withstand scrutiny from physicians, pharmacists and patients.
For this question, strong evidence meant national guidelines developed with a systematic review and a formal method for grading evidence, and studies of emergency department care for sickle cell pain that measured time to treatment or related outcomes. Randomized trials of emergency department protocols for this population are rare, so the appraisal expected to rely on guidelines and observational studies. The strongest available evidence is not always strong evidence; the task is to find the best that exists and state honestly how good it is.
The Guidelines
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute expert panel report (Yawn et al., 2014) was based on a systematic review of the literature and graded its recommendations by strength and by quality of evidence. Its strong recommendations included rapid initiation of opioids for severe pain in a vaso-occlusive crisis, with analgesia started within 30 minutes of triage or 60 minutes of registration. The strength of the recommendation reflects the panel's judgment that the benefits of rapid pain treatment clearly outweigh the harms, even though much of the underlying evidence is observational or based on consensus. Its relevance is high: it addresses adults and children in emergency settings and gives an explicit time target.
The American Society of Hematology guidelines on acute and chronic pain (Brandow et al., 2020) used the GRADE approach and evidence-to-decision frameworks and reached 18 recommendations. Because the evidence was mostly of low certainty and benefits and harms were closely balanced, most recommendations were conditional, and the panel stressed that patient preferences should guide decisions. The guidelines support rapid and individualized management of acute pain in acute care settings. Their method is the more rigorous of the two, and their candor about low certainty is a useful caution: the direction of the evidence is clear, but the size of the benefit from any particular protocol is not well established.
The Studies
Tanabe et al. (2010) described adult emergency department care for sickle cell pain across several hospitals taking part in a learning collaborative aimed at improving analgesic management. Among 155 patients with 701 visits, the median time to initial analgesic was 74 minutes, with an interquartile range of 48 to 135 minutes, and the choice of drug and route varied widely between sites, including intramuscular injection in more than a quarter of first doses. This is a descriptive multisite study rather than a test of an intervention, and its value for the appraisal is to show that delays of more than an hour were common across departments, not a local anomaly, and that practice varied in ways a protocol could standardize.
Krishnamurti et al. (2014) evaluated individualized pain plans for children with sickle cell disease in a pediatric emergency department, comparing trends at the study hospital with a national database of children's hospitals. Between 2002 and 2008, the admission rate for emergency visits for pain fell from 78 to 52 percent at the study hospital, compared with 71 to 68 percent across the comparison hospitals, and readmissions also fell more sharply. Pain scores improved during emergency care, and families rated pain management highly. The design, a before-and-after comparison against external trends, improves on a before-and-after study with no outside comparison but cannot rule out other changes at the study hospital, and the population was children. It is the best available evidence that individualized plans change outcomes, and it is indirect for adults.
Haywood et al. (2013), appraised in the first module, adds an important dimension to the evidence: waits for patients with sickle cell disease exceeded those for fracture patients by half, a gap that held after race and triage level were taken into account. That cross-sectional finding does not test an intervention, but it indicates that a solution relying on clinicians' discretion may not close the gap, which argues for standardized protocols that reduce the room for discretion at the point of first treatment.
Evidence on the Patient's Side
The appraisal also looked for evidence from patients, because a change to emergency care for a group that reports feeling mistrusted will succeed or fail partly on how patients experience it. The pediatric study measured family ratings of pain management and found them high after individualized plans were introduced (Krishnamurti et al., 2014). The adult learning collaborative included interviews with patients about their emergency visits, which the authors used alongside time and dosing data to guide improvement (Tanabe et al., 2010). Neither is a formal study of patient experience, but both suggest that patients value plans that are written with them in advance and honored when they arrive.
The national guidelines point the same way. The hematology guidelines emphasize that patient preferences should drive decisions where evidence is uncertain (Brandow et al., 2020), which for this population means involving patients in writing their own emergency plans rather than handing them a protocol designed without them. That principle will shape the next module's design as much as the time target does.
What the Evidence Supports
Read together, the evidence supports three conclusions with different degrees of confidence. The first, supported strongly by national guidance, is that severe sickle cell pain should be treated with opioids within the first hour and ideally within 30 minutes of triage. The second, supported by descriptive studies and consistent with local data, is that most emergency departments fall short of that target and that practice varies in ways that standardized protocols could address. The third, supported tentatively by pediatric evidence, is that individualized pain plans written in advance and available at triage can improve pain control and reduce admissions. For this population the evidence is strongest about the target and weakest about the method, which means the change must be designed to be measured, not assumed to work.
One gap in the evidence stands out for a nursing change: none of the appraised studies tested nurse-initiated treatment at triage for adults, the option most likely to cut the first half hour of delay. The next module will need to design around that gap carefully, using the national time target as the anchor and the pediatric experience with individualized plans as the model.
Conclusion
Setting aside the easiest sources in favor of national guidelines and published studies produced a smaller but more defensible body of evidence. It shows clearly what good care looks like in the first hour of a sickle cell crisis, shows that delays are common and patterned rather than local accidents, and offers tentative evidence that individualized plans can help. The strongest available evidence is good enough to justify a change and not good enough to promise a particular result, which is why the next modules design the change with measurement built in.
References
Brandow, A. M., Carroll, C. P., Creary, S., Edwards-Elliott, R., Glassberg, J., Hurley, R. W., Kutlar, A., Seisa, M., Stinson, J., Strouse, J. J., Yusuf, F., Zempsky, W., & Lang, E. (2020). American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for sickle cell disease: Management of acute and chronic pain. Blood Advances, 4(12), 2656-2701. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001851
Haywood, C., Jr., Tanabe, P., Naik, R., Beach, M. C., & Lanzkron, S. (2013). The impact of race and disease on sickle cell patient wait times in the emergency department. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 31(4), 651-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.11.005
Krishnamurti, L., Smith-Packard, B., Gupta, A., Campbell, M., Gunawardena, S., & Saladino, R. (2014). Impact of individualized pain plan on the emergency management of children with sickle cell disease. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 61(10), 1747-1753. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.25024
Tanabe, P., Artz, N., Mark Courtney, D., Martinovich, Z., Weiss, K. B., Zvirbulis, E., & Hafner, J. W. (2010). Adult emergency department patients with sickle cell pain crisis: A learning collaborative model to improve analgesic management. Academic Emergency Medicine, 17(4), 399-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00693.x
Yawn, B. P., Buchanan, G. R., Afenyi-Annan, A. N., Ballas, S. K., Hassell, K. L., James, A. H., Jordan, L., Lanzkron, S. M., Lottenberg, R., Savage, W. J., Tanabe, P. J., Ware, R. E., Murad, M. H., Goldsmith, J. C., Ortiz, E., Fulwood, R., Horton, A., & John-Sowah, J. (2014). Management of sickle cell disease: Summary of the 2014 evidence-based report by expert panel members. JAMA, 312(10), 1033-1048. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.10517
How this NUR 5033 Module 2 example is structured
NUR 5033 Module 2 typically appraises the strongest available evidence for the chosen group rather than the easiest sources; your classroom's instructions decide the appraisal tool and the number of sources. This example first explains what counted as strong for this question and which sources were rejected, then appraises the guidelines together and the studies one by one for design, findings and relevance to adults in a community department. A synthesis section states what the evidence supports firmly and what it supports only tentatively, which becomes the basis for the change designed in the next module.
NUR5033 Module 2 questions, answered
What does NUR5033 Module 2 usually ask for?
NUR5033 Module 2 typically asks students to appraise the strongest available evidence for the population and gap defined in Module 1. Many sections expect guidelines and primary studies to be appraised for method, findings and relevance, with a statement of what the evidence supports. Your classroom's instructions decide the number of sources and the appraisal tool.
Can I use blogs or hospital protocols as evidence?
They can help you understand practice, but they are weak evidence because they usually report no data and do not describe how their recommendations were developed. Prefer national guidelines built on systematic reviews and published studies. If you mention easier sources, explain why you set them aside.
What if the best evidence is from a different population?
Use it, and say so. Appraise how the population differs, such as children instead of adults, and what that means for applying the findings. Indirect evidence can still guide a change, but the change should then be designed with careful measurement so that its effect in your population can be seen.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.