Medical Education - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5
-
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.
-
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.