Search

Patients' Own Medications (POMs) are useful to inform clinical decision-making, best possible medication history documentation, and ensure timely medication administration. A procedure was developed for managing POMs specifically in the emergency department (ED) and short stay unit. This study evaluated the impact of this procedure on process and patient safety outcomes. An interrupted time-series was undertaken in a metropolitan ED/short stay unit between November 2017 and September 2021. Pre-implementation and during each of four post-implementation time-periods, data were collected at unannounced times on approximately 100 patients taking medications prior to presentation. Endpoints included proportion of patients with POMs stored in green POMs bags, in standardised locations, and proportion who self-medicated without nurses knowing. Following procedure implementation, POMs were stored in standardised locations for 45.9 % of patients. Proportion of patients with POMs stored in green bags increased from 6.9 % to 48.2 % (difference 41.3 %, p < 0.001). Patient self-administration without nurses' knowledge declined from 10.3 % to 2.3 % (difference 8.0 %, p = 0.015). POMs were infrequently left in ED/short stay unit after discharge. The procedure has standardised POMs storage, but room for further improvement remains. Although POMs were not locked away and were readily available to clinicians, patient self-medication without nurses' knowledge declined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioid prescribing requires careful planning to minimise the risk of serious adverse outcomes. However, documentation of discharge opioid plans for patients and their general practitioners (GPs) is inconsistent, particularly when opioids are commenced in the emergency department or after surgery. We describe an initiative to promote consistent discharge opioid plan communication by implementing an opioid management plan (OMP) in our hospital's electronic medical record. Completion of an electronic form by the prescriber generates an OMP note in the medical history, which is used by the pharmacist to provide tailored opioid patient education. The OMP also populates the discharge summary that is sent to the GP and the Australian national digital health record platform, My Health Record. Preliminary evaluation shows incorporating OMP documentation into routine workflows has assisted prescribers to consistently document the plan for supplied opioids, supporting continuity of care. Workflow optimisation is ongoing to further improve discharge summary documentation and provision of patient‐friendly written information. This study was conducted as a quality improvement project and audits conducted as part of the project were approved by Austin Health's Office for Research (Project No: LNR/18/Austin/155). Informed patient consent was not required by Austin Health. [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]

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. [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]