Medical Education - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10
-
ItemDon't Label Me: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions and Experiences of Sedation During Behavioral Emergencies in the Emergency Department(WILEY, 2017-08)OBJECTIVES: Behavioral emergencies are commonly seen in emergency departments (EDs). Acutely agitated patients can be difficult to manage and sedation may be required to decrease dangerous behavior and to ensure the safety of both the patient and the staff. While the experience of staff caring for this population has been reported, patients' experiences with their overall management remains unknown. We aimed to describe the perceptions and experiences of patients regarding the use of sedation during acute behavioral emergencies. METHODS: Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with adults aged 18 years or older, who had received parenteral sedative medication for the management of a behavioral emergency and were deemed capable to participate. The participants were asked about their experiences of receiving care in the ED during the episode and their perceptions of sedation. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 13 interviews. Two broad themes emerged: trusting relationships and needs or wants following sedation. A trusting relationship is built through 1) confidence in care, 2) sedation as an appropriate treatment, 3) insight into own behavior, and 4) humane treatment. Four subthemes of needs or wants were identified: 1) empathy, 2) debrief, 3) addressing concerns, and 4) follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A trusting relationship was identified as crucial to minimize the negative impact of coercive measures used to manage behavioral emergencies. Participants expressed similar needs to patients presenting with medical problems. This study illustrates their needs for compassionate communication, adequate information about the treatment provided, and follow-up care.
-
ItemIntravenous midazolam-droperidol combination, droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for methamphetamine-related acute agitation: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial(WILEY, 2017-07)AIM: To examine the efficacy and safety of (1) midazolam-droperidol versus droperidol and (2) midazolam-droperidol versus olanzapine for methamphetamine-related acute agitation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, controlled, clinical trial was conducted in two Australian emergency departments, between October 2014 and September 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and sixty-one patients, aged 18-65 years, requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation, were enrolled into this study. We report the results of a subgroup of 92 methamphetamine-affected patients. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients were assigned randomly to receive either an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg combined, droperidol 10 mg or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg or olanzapine 5 mg, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients sedated adequately at 10 minutes. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (ORs, 95% CI) were estimated. FINDINGS: The baseline characteristics of patients in the three groups were similar. At 10 minutes, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group [29 of 34 (85.3%)] were sedated adequately compared with the droperidol group [14 of 30 (46.7%), OR = 6.63, 95% CI = 2.02-21.78] or with the olanzapine group [14 of 28 (50.0%), OR 5.80, 95% CI = 1.74-19.33]. The number of patients who experienced an adverse event (AE) in the midazolam-droperidol, droperidol and olanzapine groups was seven of 34, two of 30 and six of 28, respectively. The most common AE was oxygen desaturation. CONCLUSION: A midazolam-droperidol combination appears to provide more rapid sedation of patients with methamphetamine-related acute agitation than droperidol or olanzapine alone.
-
ItemRisk Factors for Sedation-related Events During Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department(WILEY, 2019-10)OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe the incidence, nature, and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) among patients who received parenteral sedation for acute agitation in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: We undertook a prospective observational study and a clinical trial of parenteral sedation for the management of acute agitation. We included agitated adult patients who required parenteral sedation from 2014 to 2017 in 12 Australian EDs, excluding those with incomplete information or aged under 18 years. The primary outcome was the number of patients who experienced at least one AE. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with AEs. RESULTS: A total of 904 patients were included in the analyses (62.3% male; median age = 34 years, range = 18 to 95 years). Of these, 144 (15.9%) patients experienced at least one AE. The most common AEs were oxygen desaturation (7.4%), airway obstruction (3.6%), bradycardia (1.9%), hypotension (1.7%), and prolonged QTc interval (1.3%). No deaths or serious AEs were reported. The following factors had an increased adjusted odds ratio (OR) for experiencing an AE: age 65 years and older (OR = 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 7.2), more than one type of parenteral sedation administered within 60 minutes (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4 to 3.1), and alcohol intoxication (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation-related AEs are common, especially respiratory events. Elderly patients, sedation with multiple sedatives within 60 minutes, and alcohol intoxication increased the risk.
-
ItemManagement of behavioural emergencies: a prospective observational study in Australian emergency departments(Wiley, 2019-08-01)Abstract Background Behavioural emergencies (BEs) are complex situations in the emergency department (ED) setting. Treatment decisions always must be made within a limited time and are based on incomplete patient data. As a result of the urgency and complexity, patients often are exposed to increased risk of harm. Aim The aim of this paper is to describe the prescribing patterns and adverse events (AEs) associated with parenteral sedation for the management of BEs in Australian EDs. Methods Ten Australian EDs enrolled a convenience sample of adult patients (aged ≥18 years) requiring parenteral sedative medication for BEs. Data were collected prospectively between March 2015 and April 2017 using a designated case report form. Results In all, 564 cases were enrolled in this study. Incomplete cases (n = 17; 3%) were excluded. Of the 547 remaining cases, 63% were male and the median age was 34 years (range 18–95 years). Approximately half the patients (n = 230; 42.1%) required mechanical restraint and parenteral sedation to manage their BEs. Intramuscular monotherapy was administered in most cases (n = 390; 71.3%). The main sedative medications used as monotherapy were droperidol (n = 381; 69.7%), midazolam (n = 54; 9.9%) and olanzapine (n = 26; 4.8%). The most common combination therapy was midazolam + droperidol (n = 36; 6.6%). The incidence of AEs from sedative administration was 13.5%. No deaths or irreversible AEs were reported. Conclusions Overall, the participating EDs provided safe pharmacological management for BEs. AEs following parenteral sedation are common, although serious AEs are rare. Because all patients receiving parenteral sedation for BEs are at risk of AEs, ongoing monitoring of vital signs after parenteral sedation should be a standard protocol in all EDs.
-
ItemThe Snake Study: Survey of National Attitudes and Knowledge in Envenomation(MDPI, 2021-07)Despite recent reviews of best practice for the treatment of Australian venomous bites and stings, there is controversy about some aspects of care, particularly the use of antivenom. Our aim was to understand current attitudes and practice in the management of suspected snake envenoming. A single-stage, cross-sectional survey of Australian emergency care physicians who had treated snake envenomation in the previous 36 months was conducted. Hospital pharmacists were also invited to complete a survey about antivenom availability, usage, and wastage in Australian hospitals. The survey was available between 5 March and 16 June 2019. A total of 121 snake envenoming cases were reported, and more than a third (44.6%) of patients were not treated with antivenom. For those treated with antivenom (n = 67), 29 patients (43%) received more than one ampoule. Nearly a quarter of respondents (21%) identified that antivenom availability was, or could be, a barrier to manage snake envenoming, while cost was identified as the least important factor. Adverse reactions following antivenom use were described in 11.9% of cases (n = 8). The majority of patients with suspected envenoming did not receive antivenom. We noted variation in dosage, sources of information, beliefs, and approaches to the care of the envenomed patient.
-
ItemCharacteristics and clinical outcomes for mental health patients admitted to a behavioural assessment unit: Implications for model of care and practice(WILEY, 2021-02)Behavioural assessment units (BAU) have been established in emergency departments (EDs) to provide short‐term observation, treatment, and care to people experiencing acute behavioural disturbance. A prospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of adult patients admitted to one BAU located within an ED (July–December 2017) to compare clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and use of restrictive interventions for those who received a specialist mental health (MH) assessment with those who did not. Of the 457 patients, 61.5% received a specialist MH assessment. This group had a lower acuity (Australasian Triage Score 10.4%; CI 0.2–2.0% vs 13.6%; CI 9.3–19.5%); more arrived with police (28.8%; CI 23.8–34.3 vs 5.1%; CI 2.7–9.4%); and were subjected to restrictive interventions while in the BAU. Security responses for unarmed threat (code grey) were higher (10.9%; CI 7.8–15.0% vs 4.4%; CI 2.3–8.5%), as was the use of chemical restraint (4.2%; CI 2.4–7.2 vs 0.0% CI 0.0 – 2.1%). Those requiring specialist MH assessment had a longer length of stay (12.7 vs 5.2 hours). Further development of the BAU model of care must include targeted, evidence‐based strategies to minimize the use of restrictive interventions and ensure timely access to acute mental health services.
-
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.
-
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.
-
ItemScreening major trauma patients for prevalence of illicit drugs(WILEY, 2022-01)INTRODUCTION: Australasian emergency departments (ED) routinely test patient alcohol levels following major trauma, but assessment for illicit drugs is uncommon. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study of major motor-vehicle-related trauma patients attending both adult major trauma centres in Victoria, Australia. All eligible patients had point-of-care saliva testing to determine the prevalence of common illicit drugs. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 1411 patients were screened, 36 refused (2.6%) and 63 were excluded. Of the final 1312 cases included, 173 (13.2%; 95% confidence interval 11.5, 15.1) tested positive to at least one illicit substance, with 133 (76.9%; 69.7, 82.8) positive for meth/amphetamines. One in five had more than one illicit substance detected. Patients testing positive were most frequently in motor vehicles (91.9% vs. 85.6%) and least frequently cyclists (2.3% vs. 4.2%) or pedestrians (5.2% vs. 10.3%), compared to those testing negative. They were younger (mean age 35.4 vs. 43.1 years), more likely to arrive overnight (27.2% vs. 12.1%) or after single vehicle crashes (54.3% vs. 42.3%). Although the initial disposition from ED did not differ, those testing positive were more likely to re-present within 28 days (13.9% vs. 5.4%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of potentially illicit substances among patients presenting with suspected major trauma supports the need for urgent preventive strategies. The low rate of patient refusal and large numbers screened by ED staff suggests that point-of care testing for illicit substances in major trauma is acceptable and feasible. This study and ongoing surveillance may be used to inform driver education strategies.
-
ItemEconomic Evaluation of Midazolam-Droperidol Combination, Versus Droperidol or Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Within-Trial Analysis(SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG, 2018-06)BACKGROUND: The combination of midazolam and droperidol has proven superior to droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy in the management of acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVE: This is the first economic analysis to evaluate the cost-benefit and cost effectiveness of the midazolam-droperidol combination compared with droperidol or olanzapine for the management of acute agitation in EDs. METHODS: This analysis used data derived from a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial conducted in two metropolitan Australian EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. The economic evaluation was from the perspective of Australian public hospital EDs. The main outcomes included agitation management time and the agitation-free time gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: The midazolam-droperidol combination was the least costly regimen (Australian dollars [AU$]46.25 per patient) compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups (AU$92.18 and AU$110.45 per patient, respectively). The main cost driver for all groups was the cost of the labour required during the initial adequate sedation. The combination afforded an additional 10-13 min of mean agitation-free time gained, which can be translated to additional savings of AU$31.24-42.60 per patient compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups. The benefit-cost ratio for the midazolam-droperidol combination was 12.2:1.0, or AU$122,000 in total benefit for every AU$10,000 spent on management of acute agitation. Sensitivity analyses over key variables indicated these results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: The midazolam-droperidol combination may be a cost-saving and dominant cost-effective regimen for the treatment of acute agitation in EDs as it is more effective and less costly than either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy.