Search

Objective: Patients present to EDs with various medication‐related problems (MRPs). MRPs are also associated with ED care, occurring during ED presentation or shortly afterwards. The aim of the present study is to describe the prevalence and nature of MRPs that occur prior to, during or shortly after leaving ED. Methods: We undertook a prospective, observational study in nine Australian EDs. Blocks of 10 consecutive adult patients who were not seen by a pharmacist in ED and who presented at pre‐specified times were identified. Within 1 week of ED discharge, a pharmacist interviewed patients and undertook a medical record review to determine their medication history, patients' understanding of treatment, potential MRP risk factors and manage any identified MRPs. Results: A total of 904 patients were recruited: 14.8% aged ≥80 years, 18.9% taking more than eight regular medications; 581 MRPs were identified; 287 (49.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 45.3–53.5%) of moderate‐high significance. Most highly significant MRPs involved high‐risk medications, particularly strong opioids, insulin and anti‐coagulants. The most common types of MRPs were prescribing errors (46.8%), patient adherence/knowledge issues (31.2%) and adverse drug reactions (7.4%). Of all patients, 381 (42.1%, 95% CI 38.9–45.5%) had at least one MRP; 31.4% (95% CI 28.4–34.6%) had MRPs that could be identified or managed by screening at ED presentation and 12.4% (95% CI 10.4–14.8%) had MRPs that could be identified or managed by screening at ED discharge. Conclusions: Patients experienced a range of MRPs throughout the ED continuum of care. From these data, screening tools will be developed so that ED clinicians may identify patients at greatest risk of MRPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine medications used by ED doctors to improve work and academic performance, and to manage stress and anxiety. Methods: We undertook an online, voluntary, anonymous survey of ACEM fellows and trainees. Results: One hundred and thirty‐nine (46.5%) respondents used a medication under examination. Sleep aids included melatonin (19.1% of respondents) and benzodiazepines (8.7%). Medications to improve performance included modafinil (4.7%), pseudoephedrine (2.0%), melatonin (2.0%) and beta blockers (1.3%). Some medications were taken prior to shifts. Medications to manage stress and anxiety included benzodiazepines (3.0%) and beta blockers (2.0%). Conclusion: Medication use is common and support for some doctors may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To assess the accuracy of medication information sources available for adult patients presenting to the ED, compared to a best possible medication history (BPMH). Methods: This prospective observational study was undertaken in the ED of a major tertiary‐referral teaching hospital. A convenience sample of consecutive adult patients taking one or more regular medications was included. A BPMH was ascertained using patient/carer interviews, where available, and confirmed with one or more other sources. For residential care facility (RCF) patients, the RCF medication chart and at least one other source were used. Information sources compared with the BPMH were community pharmacy dispensing history, patient's own medications, patient's medication list, general practitioner letter, medications stored in and labelled on dose administration aids (DAAs) and the RCF chart. Number of discrepancies per patient for each source was determined by comparing medications and dose regimens to those documented in the BPMH. Results: A total of 455 patients (median age 71 years) took a median of six ‘regular’ and two ‘as required’ medications. The median number (range) of discrepancies per patient for regular medication names and dosages were RCF chart 0 (0–3), DAA contents 2.0 (0–9), patient's medication list 2.5 (0–16), DAA medications label 3.0 (0–7), community pharmacy history 3.0 (0–19), general practitioner letter 3.0 (0–18) and patient's own medications 4.0 (0–16). Overall, 40.4% of discrepancies were deemed ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ clinical significance. Omission errors accounted for 55.6% of discrepancies. Conclusions: A combination of sources is essential to determine the BPMH. RCF charts provided the most accurate information. Other sources had two to four regular medication‐related discrepancies per patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on ED discharge opioid analgesic ( OA) prescribing. Methods A brief, one-on-one, educational intervention was delivered to ED OA prescribers by an ED clinical champion. The percentage of patients receiving (i) written advice regarding appropriate oxycodone use, (ii) written or verbal advice regarding appropriate post-discharge follow up and (iii) written general practitioner notification that oxycodone had been prescribed were determined pre- and post-intervention, through review of electronic patient records and structured patient telephone interviews conducted 3-7 days after ED attendance. Secondary outcomes included total amount prescribed and use of non- OA therapies. ED OA prescribers were surveyed to evaluate perceived effectiveness and intervention acceptability. Results A total of 30 ED OA prescribers received the 5-min intervention. Pre- and post-intervention, 80 and 81 patients were interviewed, respectively. Percentage of patients given written OA information increased from 10% to 22% ( P = 0.04) and those receiving follow-up advice increased from 61 to 94% ( P < 0.01). General practitioner notification of OA prescription increased from 15% to 88% ( P < 0.01). Risk ratio for achieving all three end-points was 7.5 (95% confidence interval 1.8-32, P = 0.01). Median total amount of oxycodone prescribed/patient decreased from 100mg to 50mg ( P = 0.04). Non- OA therapies were used by 49% of pre-intervention and 85% of post-intervention patients ( P = <0.01). All ED OA prescribers agreed the intervention would change their prescribing practices; 70% deemed the intervention appropriate for delivery in their work environment. Conclusion A brief, one-on-one educational intervention targeting ED OA prescribers was well received by clinicians and associated with improved quality of OA prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the prevalence and nature of off-label and unlicenced (off-label/unlicenced) medicine administration to paediatric ED patients. Methods We undertook a retrospective, observational study in six EDs ( July 2011 to June 2012, inclusive). Patients, aged 0-17 years, who were administered a medicine in the ED were included. At each site, 50 eligible patients were randomly selected each month of the study period. An explicit review of each patient's records was undertaken. Medicines were classified as on or off-label/unlicenced according to categories of use approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Results There were 3343 patients enrolled (56.5% men, mean ± SD age 6.7 ± 5.4 years). Of the 6786 medicine doses administered, 2072 (30.5%, 95% CI 29.4-31.7%) were off-label/unlicenced. The off-label/unlicenced doses were administered to 1213 (36.3%, 95% CI 34.7-37.9%) patients. Patients administered an off-label/unlicenced medicine were younger than those who were not ( P < 0.01). Salbutamol, ondansetron, ipratropium, fentanyl and oxycodone were the medicines most commonly administered off-label. In 910 (44.0%) cases, the dose/frequency was not approved; in 592 (28.6%), there was an unapproved indication for treatment; in 158 (7.6%), the medicine was administered via an unapproved route; in 154 (7.4%) the medicine was not approved for the weight or age; and in 74 (3.5%) an unlicenced product was administered. The remaining cases had combinations of reasons. Conclusions Off-label/unlicenced medicine administration is common. A registry of commonly used off-label medicines is recommended in which the safety and efficacy of their off-label use have been demonstrated by published evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The study aims to evaluate the impact of a nurse-initiated analgesia pathway ( NIAP) intervention for paediatric patients in the ED. Methods We undertook a pre- and post-intervention trial in a large, tertiary referral, mixed ED. The intervention comprised development and implementation of a comprehensive NIA Standing Order. In addition to paracetamol, which nurses could initiate pre-intervention, they were authorised to administer ibuprofen, paracetamol/codeine combinations and topical local anaesthetics prior to a doctor assessing the patient. All nurses were trained and credentialed prior to administering the NIAP. Patients aged 5-17 years with a triage pain score of ≥4 ( Wong- Baker or numerical rating scale) were eligible for enrolment. The primary outcome was time to analgesia. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who received 'adequate analgesia' and parental satisfaction with ED pain management (measured 48 h post-discharge). Results Fifty-one children were enrolled in both the pre- and post-intervention periods. Patient sex and mean age, weight and triage pain score did not differ between the groups ( P > 0.05). At post-intervention, significantly more patients received nurse-initiated analgesia (3.0% vs 43.9%; P < 0.001) and the median time to analgesia was significantly reduced (58 min vs 23 min; P < 0.01). Also, significantly more patients received 'adequate analgesia' post-intervention (41.2% vs 72.5%; P < 0.001). At follow up, the proportion of parents who were very satisfied with their child's overall pain management trended upwards in the post-intervention period (47.1% vs 66.7%; P = 0.07). No adverse events were observed during either period. Conclusion The NIAP significantly reduced time to analgesia. It was associated with high levels of parental satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to evaluate a multifaceted education initiative designed to reduce the prophylactic use of metoclopramide. Methods: This was a pre- and post-intervention trial undertaken in a single ED. All ED doctors and nurses were targeted. The intervention comprised a specifically designed, 19-slide ‘e-learning module’, accessible via the ED intranet, supplemented by in-service training and a range of reminder techniques (posters, emails and drug room flyers). The primary end-point was the proportion of patients administered metoclopramide prophylactically with their initial morphine dose. Data were collected on random samples of patients who received morphine, using explicit medical chart review. Results: Both pre- and post-intervention periods were of 3 month duration. The charts of 146 cases were reviewed in each period. In the post-intervention period: • The proportion of patients administered metoclopramide prophylactically decreased from 22.6% to 4.1% (difference 18.5% [95% CI 10.3–26.7], P < 0.001) • The proportion of patients administered metoclopramide appropriately (for known morphine sensitivity, established nausea and rescue anti-emesis) rose marginally from 28.8% to 32.9% (difference 4.1% [95% CI −7.2–15.4], P = 0.53) • There was a 12.7% decrease in the number of ampoules of metoclopramide issued to the ED without a concurrent rise in the issue of other anti-emetic drugs Conclusion: The education initiative resulted in a significant improvement in the evidence-based use of metoclopramide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain management experts have recommended a diminished role for pethidine because of lack of superiority for any indication and greater potential for adverse effects compared with morphine. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a multifaceted education initiative on prescribing patterns and to minimize pethidine use in the ED. Methods: This was a pre- and post-intervention study. The intervention was an education initiative, introduced between December 2003 and January 2004. It comprised ED pharmacist in-services for medical and nursing staff, championing by senior medical staff (ED consultants, surgical units, Drug and Therapeutics Committee) and concurrent prescriber feedback by ED pharmacists. The pre-intervention prescribing practices guided the development of in-services and the educational programme. The intervention was evaluated by a medical record review of analgesic prescribing in March–April of both 2003 (pre-intervention period) and 2004 (post-intervention period). Outcome measures were the proportions of patients who were prescribed pethidine and the proportions of pethidine ampoules supplied to the ED. Results were analysed as differences in proportions. Results: In the pre-intervention period, 60 ampoules of pethidine (7.2% of opiate doses) and 777 ampoules of morphine (92.8% of opiate doses) were administered compared with 15 ampoules of pethidine (1.7%) and 869 ampoules of morphine (98.3%) in the post-intervention period ( P < 0.001). Of patients who received an opiate dose, 50 of 798 (6.3%) and 11 of 747 (1.5%) received pethidine in the pre- and post-intervention periods, respectively ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our education initiative resulted in a sustained and significant reduction in pethidine prescribing in the ED. Sustainability requires ongoing in-services for ED staff, usually as part of the orientation programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective. To determine the nature and prevalence of potential interactions between prescription drugs and complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and the reasons some patients do not advise their physicians of CAM use. Design. Cross-sectional survey. Setting. The emergency department of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, a tertiary referral center. Patients. Four hundred four adult patients (≥ 18 yrs) who visited the emergency department between February 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003. Intervention. A specifically designed, self-administered questionnaire, available in seven languages. Measurements and Main Results. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of potential prescription drug-CAM interactions and the reasons some patients do not advise their physicians of CAM use. Mean ± SD patient age was 50.6 ± 20.0 years; 220 patients were men (54.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.5-59.4%). When asked about use during the previous year, 275 patients (68.1%, 95% CI 63.2-72.5%) reported having taken a CAM; of these, 138 were also taking a prescription drug. We identified 15 documented potential drug-CAM interactions in nine patients (3.3% of CAM users, 95% CI 1.6-6.3%) and 97 theoretical potential drug-CAM interactions in 51 patients (18.6% of CAM users, 95% CI 14.2-23.8%). Aspirin and warfarin were the most commonly involved drugs. Of CAM users, 197 (71.6%, 95% CI 65.9-76.8%) never informed their physician about CAM use, most frequently because they were not asked. Conclusion. The prevalence of potential drug-CAM interactions among patients in the emergency department is considerable, and some of these interactions could be clinically significant. Practitioners should increase their awareness of potential drug-CAM interactions, and education initiatives aimed at encouraging patient-physician discussion of CAM use are recommended, such as a CAM history in their patient evaluation. Further research is required to better determine the clinical significance of drug-CAM interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]