Medical Education - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10
-
ItemRestrictive interventions in Victorian emergency departments: A study of current clinical practice(WILEY, 2020-06)OBJECTIVE: To determine current clinical practices for managing behavioural emergencies within Victorian public hospital EDs. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study involving all patients who attended ED in 2016 at the Alfred, Ballarat, Dandenong, Geelong and Royal Melbourne Hospitals. The primary outcome was the rate of patient presentations with at least one restrictive intervention. Secondary outcomes included the rate of security calls for unarmed threats (Code Grey), legal status under the Mental Health Act at both the time of ED arrival and the restrictive intervention, and intervention details. For each site, data on 100 patients who had a restrictive intervention were randomly extracted for indication and methods of restraint. RESULTS: In 2016, 327 454 patients presented to the five EDs; the Code Grey rate was 1.49% (95% CI 1.45-1.54). Within the Code Grey population, 942 had at least one restrictive intervention (24.3%, 95% CI 23.0-25.7). Details were extracted on 494 patients. The majority (62.8%, 95% CI 58.4-67.1) were restrained under a Duty of Care. Physical restraint was used for 165 (33.4%, 95% CI 29.3-37.8) patients, 296 were mechanically restrained (59.9%, 95% CI 55.4-64.3), median mechanical restraint time 180 min (IQR 75-360), and 388 chemically restrained (78.5%, 95% CI 74.6-82.0). CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive interventions in the ED largely occurred under a Duty of Care. Care of patients managed under legislation that covers assessment and treatment of mental illness has a strong clinical governance framework and focus on minimising restrictive interventions. However, this is not applied to the majority of patients who experience restraint in Victorian EDs.
-
Item
-
ItemGet with the guidelines: management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in emergency departments in Europe and Australasia is sub-optimal(Wiley, 2020-02-01)Background Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common in emergency departments (ED). Guidelines recommend administration of inhaled bronchodilators, systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics along with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for patients with respiratory acidosis. Aim To determine compliance with guideline recommendations for patients treated for COPD in ED in Europe (EUR) and South East Asia/Australasia (SEA) and to compare management and outcomes. Methods In each region, an observational prospective cohort study was performed that included patients presenting to ED with the main complaint of dyspnoea during three 72-h periods. This planned sub-study included those with an ED primary discharge diagnosis of COPD. Data were collected on demographics, clinical features, treatment, disposition and in-hospital mortality. We determined overall compliance with guideline recommendations and compared treatments and outcome between regions. Results A total of 801 patients was included from 122 ED (66 EUR and 46 SEA). Inhaled bronchodilators were administered to 80.3% of patients, systemic corticosteroids to 59.5%, antibiotics to 44 and 60.6% of patients with pH <7.3 received NIV. The proportion administered systemic corticosteroids was higher in SEA (EUR vs SEA for all comparisons; 52 vs 66%, P < 0.001) as was administration of antibiotics (40 vs 49%, P = 0.02). Rates of NIV and mechanical ventilation were similar. Overall in-hospital mortality was 4.2% (SEA 3.9% vs EUR 4.5%, P = 0.77). Conclusion Compliance with guideline recommended treatments, in particular administration of corticosteroids and NIV, was sub-optimal in both regions. Improved compliance has the potential to improve patient outcome.
-
ItemPrevalence of illicit substance use among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute behavioural disturbance: Rapid point-of-care saliva screening(WILEY, 2020-06)OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of illicit substance use among patients presenting to one ED with acute behavioural disturbance using point-of-care saliva testing. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted. Acute behavioural disturbance was defined as any episode requiring a security response for unarmed threat (Code Grey). The setting was a single ED and tertiary referral centre located in metropolitan Australia. Participants were adults presenting to the ED requiring a Code Grey. Saliva was analysed for meth/amphetamine, cannabis, cocaine and opiates using a rapid point-of-care test. Self-reported drug use was recorded at the time of saliva testing. Data collection occurred between August 2016 and March 2017. RESULTS: There were 229 valid saliva samples. Participants were, on average, 35 years (range 18-72) and male (168/229; 73%). Forty percent (95% confidence interval 34-47) of samples tested positive, with 20% positive for two or more substances. Meth/amphetamines was detected in 92% of positive samples, 17% of samples tested positive for opiates, 8% for cannabis and 7% for cocaine. Among participants, 19% self-reported current substance use and 20% reported using illicit substances within the past 24 h. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of illicit substance use among this cohort was 40%. Self-reporting was unreliable. Point-of-care saliva testing is feasible. Early identification of harmful drug use may assist clinical decision making in selected or undifferentiated cases and provide an opportunity to implement harm minimisation strategies and make referrals.
-
ItemStudy design: A research primer for low- and middle-income countries(ELSEVIER, 2020)Study design is critical to ensure that research questions are answered in an appropriate and rational manner for all aspects of health, but particularly in emergency care. Appropriate study design selection is one of the most critical decisions to make at the earliest stage of a research project; once this is clear, much of the methodology and sample size estimations should be straightforward. Selection of an appropriate study design is fundamental to good research and deserves careful consideration at the outset of any research project. The classic gold standard for study design is the double-blind randomised clinical trial, but it is often not possible to achieve this ideal in the busy clinical emergency environment or with the resources available. Descriptive studies are common in emergency care; they include retrospective clinical records reviews, prospective cohort studies and case-control studies. Case reports and surveys can be a useful introduction to research for novice researchers. When sufficient empirical evidence on a topic exists, results of similar studies can be combined in systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses to pool the results from multiple studies to determine stronger evidence for or against an intervention or treatment, but these techniques require specialist expertise and statistical skills.
-
ItemConference presentations: A research primer for low- and middle-income countries(ELSEVIER, 2020)Presenting research at a conference is an opportunity to disseminate the findings, network with other researchers, and to develop your academic track record. Although every conference will have some local differences, there are common approaches to presenting your research in the best manner. This will differ depending on whether it is an oral or a poster presentation. This research primer aims to support researchers in the early stages of their careers to undertake the best possible presentation.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailablePatients presenting for hospital-based screening for the coronavirus disease 2019: Risk of disease, and healthcare access preferences(WILEY, 2020-10)OBJECTIVE: Early during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Australian EDs experienced an unprecedented surge in patients seeking screening. Understanding what proportion of these patients require testing and who can be safely screened in community-based models of care is critical for workforce and infrastructure planning across the healthcare system, as well as public messaging campaigns. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, we screened patients presenting to a COVID-19 screening clinic in a tertiary ED. We assessed the proportion of patients who met testing criteria; self-reported symptom severity; reasons why they came to the ED for screening and views on community-based care. RESULTS: We include findings from 1846 patients. Most patients (55.3%) did not meet contemporaneous criteria for testing and most (57.6%) had mild or no (13.4%) symptoms. The main reason for coming to the ED was being referred by a telephone health service (31.3%) and 136 (7.4%) said they tried to contact their general practitioner but could not get an appointment. Only 47 (2.6%) said they thought the disease was too specialised for their general practitioner to manage. CONCLUSIONS: While capacity building in acute care facilities is an important part of pandemic planning, it is also important that patients not needing hospital level of care can be assessed and treated elsewhere. We have identified a significant proportion of people at this early stage in the pandemic who have sought healthcare at hospital but who might have been assisted in the community had services been available and public health messaging structured to guide them there.
-
ItemNo Preview Available
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableAmphetamine-type stimulant use among patients admitted to the emergency department behavioural assessment unit: Screening and referral outcomes(WILEY, 2020-10)Amphetamine-type stimulant use, including methamphetamine, amphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is associated with a range of behavioural symptoms. Screening for amphetamine-type stimulant use among people presenting to the emergency department with behavioural disturbance and referral to treatment has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients admitted to a behavioural assessment unit and report referral outcomes. A prospective observational design was used. Individuals who tested positive or self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use were referred to the alcohol and other drug clinician. We measured the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use in saliva and by self-report along with rates of referral. The setting was a behavioural assessment unit located within an Australian emergency department. Admitted adults were enrolled from July to December 2017. Those who tested positive or self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use were provided with harm reduction advice and offered referral. Four hundred and seventy-two tests were performed. Fifteen were excluded due to invalid results or redundant enrolment. Of the 457 individuals, 59% were male, with a mean age of 35 years (SD 13). Fifty-three (11.6%, 95% CI: 8.9-15.0) tested positive for amphetamine-type stimulants. Of those with a negative test, 44 (9.6%, 95% CI: 7.3-12.7) self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use in the previous 24 hours. The prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use was 21.2% (95% CI: 17.7-25.2). Most accepted referral to the alcohol and other drug clinician (85.6%, 95% CI 77.2-91.2). The emergency visit represents a window of opportunity for screening for amphetamine-type stimulant use and initiating referrals.
-
ItemResearch capacity of Australian and New Zealand emergency medicine departments(BMC, 2020-04-15)BACKGROUND: Large, multicentre studies are required in emergency medicine to advance clinical care and improve patient outcomes. The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine clinical trials network is available to researchers to assist with facilitating large, multicentre research. However, there is no current information about the research capacity of emergency departments (EDs) in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: All EDs accredited for emergency medicine training in Australia and New Zealand were eligible to participate. Research leads or ED directors were invited via email and telephone to complete a survey. Data were collected regarding the presence of a research lead; their research experience; available research resources including colleagues, funding, departmental paid research time; publications; and research culture. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve responses were received on behalf of 122 (84%) sites (10 satellite plus main) from a possible 143 sites with all types of hospitals and regions represented. Research leads were identified at 66 (59%) sites; 32 (29%) had a director of emergency medicine research. A wide range of research was underway. Ninety-six sites (66%) contributed data to multicentre projects. Twenty-one centres (17%) were highly productive with multiple resources (skilled colleagues, funding, staffing), a positive research culture and high-volume output. Sixty to seventy centres (50-58%) had limited resources, experienced an unsupportive research culture and authored manuscripts infrequently. Paid time for research directors was associated with increased research outputs. DISCUSSION: ACEM sites have the capacity to undertake large multicentre studies with a varied network of sites and researchers. While some sites are well equipped for research, the majority of EDs had minimal research output.