Search

Objective: To ascertain and develop recommendations for analgesic management, discharge planning and further healthcare utilisation of adults presenting to an Australian tertiary ED with radicular or low back pain (LBP). Methods: This prospective cohort study included adults presenting with non‐specific LBP or radicular pain to an Australian tertiary ED. Participants with trauma/cancer‐related pain, and those requiring hospital admission or surgical interventions were excluded. The primary outcome was pharmacological and non‐pharmacological management delivered in ED, retrospectively collected via electronic medical records. The secondary outcomes include discharge management use, and changes made due to post‐discharge healthcare utilisation, as observed by weekly telephone questionnaires over 4‐weeks follow‐up. Results: Of the 100 participants recruited, 94 completed follow‐up. In ED, pharmacological management was received by 85%, including opioids (62%) and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS, 63%). Non‐pharmacological management was received by 73%, including patient education (71%) and exercise prescription (37%). In the first‐week post‐discharge, changes to initial discharge plan occurred in 50%, mostly carried out by GPs (76%). Over the follow‐up period, 51% received additional investigations/referrals. Pharmacological use decreased by 38% and non‐pharmacological use decreased by 10%. 16% of opioid‐naïve patients continued using opioids 4‐weeks post‐discharge. Conclusion: ED presentations for LBP were more often treated pharmacologically than non‐pharmacologically, with opioids commonly prescribed and NSAIDs potentially under‐utilised. Post‐discharge, additional investigations/referrals, discharge analgesia reductions and maintenance of non‐pharmacological management were common. Opioid initiation as a result of LBP presentations, signifies a potential 'gateway' towards unintentional long‐term use. Key study findings form our nine recommendations to inform ED LBP pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prescription of opioids in emergency care has been associated with harm, including overdose and dependence. The aim of this trial was to assess restriction of access to oxycodone (ROXY), in combination with education and guideline modifications, versus education and guideline modifications alone (standard care) to reduce oxycodone administration in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods: An unblinded, active control, randomised controlled trial was conducted in an adult tertiary ED. Participants were patients aged 18–75 years who had analgesics administered in the ED. The primary intervention was ROXY, through removal of all oxycodone immediate release tablets from the ED imprest, with availability of a small supply after senior clinician approval. The intervention did not restrict prescription of discharge medications. The primary outcome measure was oxycodone administration rates. Secondary outcomes were administration rates of other analgesic medications, time to initial analgesics and oxycodone prescription on discharge. Results: There were 2258 patients eligible for analysis. Oxycodone was administered to 80 (6.1%) patients in the ROXY group and 221 (23.3%) patients in the standard care group (relative risk (RR) 0.26; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.33; p <.001). Tapentadol was prescribed more frequently in the ROXY group (RR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.71–2.74), while there were no differences in prescription of other analgesic medications. On discharge, significantly fewer patients were prescribed oxycodone (RR 0.51; 95% CI: 0.39–0.66) and no differences were observed in prescription rates of other analgesic medications. There was no difference in time to first analgesic (HR 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86–1.02). Conclusions: Restricted access to oxycodone was superior to education and guideline modifications alone for reducing oxycodone use in the ED and reducing discharge prescriptions of oxycodone from the ED. The addition of simple restrictive interventions is recommended to enable rapid changes to clinician behaviour to reduce the potential harm associated with the prescribing of oxycodone in the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine effects of implementing a sepsis alert response system in the ED that included early intervention by emergency medicine (EM) pharmacists. Methods: A prospective cohort (8 February 2016 to 28 February 2018) of patients after implementation of a sepsis alert response system in an Australian ED was compared to a retrospective cohort (3 January 2015 to 7 February 2016) of patients with sepsis who presented during EM pharmacist working hours and were admitted to the ICU. Results: There were 184 patients, including 80 patients pre‐ and 104 patients post‐implementation. The post‐intervention cohort was triaged at a higher acuity, had higher quick Sepsis‐related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores and higher initial lactate measurements. After the intervention, antimicrobial agents were administered to patients within 60 min of presentation more often (21 [26.3%] to 85 [81.7%], P < 0.001). After adjusting for presenting triage category, admission lactate and presenting qSOFA scores, this association remained significant (adjusted odds ratio 9.99; 95% confidence interval 4.7–21.3). Significant improvements were observed for proportion of patients who had intravenous fluids initiated within 60 min (47.5% vs 72.1%); proportion of patients who had serum lactate measured within 60 min (50.0% vs 77.9%) and proportion of patients who had blood cultures performed within 60 min (52.5% vs 85.6%). Conclusion: Implementation of a sepsis alert response that included early involvement of the EM pharmacist was associated with improvement in time to antimicrobials and other components of the sepsis bundle. An upfront, multidisciplinary approach to patients presenting to the ED with suspected sepsis should be considered more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the feasibility of an ED presenting complaint (PC) tool that categorised all ED PCs into 10 categories. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1445 consecutive patient encounters was conducted. The primary outcome was the frequency of use of the 10 PC categories. Results: Of the 1203 patient encounters meeting inclusion criteria, the PC tool was completed by clinicians in 574 (47.7%). When completed, the tool's 10 options were selected for most presentations (72.3%). Conclusion: The PC tool captured the majority of presenting complaints in 10 categories. External validation is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of methoxyflurane versus standard care for the initial management of severe pain among adult emergency department (ED) patients. Methods: This randomized parallel‐group open‐label phase IV trial of methoxyflurane was conducted in a tertiary hospital ED setting in Australia. Inclusion criteria required adult patients to have an initial pain score ≥ 8 on the 11‐point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either inhaled methoxyflurane (3 mL) or standard analgesic treatment at ED triage. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving clinically substantial pain reduction, defined as a ≥50% drop in the pain score at 30 minutes. Secondary outcomes included the pain score at multiple time points (15, 30, 60, 90 minutes) and the difference in the proportion of patients achieving a >2‐point reduction on the NRS. Results: There were 120 patients randomized and analyzed between September 4, 2019, and January 16, 2020. The primary outcome was achieved in six (10%) patients in the methoxyflurane arm and three (5%) in the standard care arm (p = 0.49). A higher proportion of patients in the methoxyflurane arm reported a >2‐point drop on the NRS at all time points (17% vs. 5% at 15 minutes, 25% vs. 9% at 30 minutes, 30% vs. 10% at 60 minutes, and 33% vs. 13% at 90 minutes). Methoxyflurane use was also associated with lower median pain scores at all time points. Conclusion: Initial management with inhaled methoxyflurane in the ED did not achieve the prespecified substantial reduction in pain, but was associated with clinically significant lower pain scores compared to standard therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The number of patients with suspected COVID‐19 presenting to Australian EDs continues to impose a burden on healthcare services. Isolation is an important aspect of infection prevention and control, but has been associated with undesirable consequences among hospital inpatients. The aim of the present study was to determine if isolation is associated with an increased length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Methods: The Registry for Emergency Care Project is a prospective cohort study with a series of nested sub‐studies. The present study was a retrospective analysis of adult patients allocated an Australasian Triage Scale category of 1 or 2 who presented to a tertiary ED between 18 and 31 May 2020. The primary outcome was ED LOS. Regression methods were used to determine the independent association between ED isolation and LOS. Results: There were 447 patients who met inclusion criteria, of which 123 (28%) were managed in isolation. The median (interquartile range) ED LOS was 259 (210–377) min for the isolation group and 204 (126–297) min for the non‐isolation group, a difference in median ED LOS of 55 min (P < 0.001). Isolation was independently associated with a 23% increase in ED LOS (P = 0.002) and doubled the odds of an ED stay of more than 4 h (adjusted odds ratio 2.2 [1.4–3.4], P = 0.001). Conclusion: Consistent with the anecdotal experience of Australian ED clinicians, the present study demonstrated an increased ED LOS for patients managed in isolation. Enhanced infection prevention and control precautions will be required during and beyond the current pandemic, creating significant ongoing challenges for emergency care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe the epidemiological and clinical features of ED patients with suspected and confirmed COVID‐19. Methods: The COVID‐19 Emergency Department (COVED) Project is an ongoing prospective cohort study that includes all adult patients presenting to The Alfred Hospital ED who undergo testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Current guidelines recommend testing for patients with fevers or chills, acute respiratory symptoms or a high‐risk exposure history, as well as implementation of infection prevention and control precautions for all suspected and confirmed cases. Study outcomes include a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 test result and intensive respiratory support. Results: In the period 1–30 April 2020, 702 of 3453 ED patients (20%; 95% CI 19–22) were tested, with a significant increase during the study period (incident rate ratio 1.019; 95% confidence interval 1.017–1.021, P < 0.001). The primary outcome of a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 test was recorded in 14 patients (2%; 95% confidence interval 1–3). Shortness of breath (77%), fatigue (100%), myalgia (67%) and diarrhoea (67%) were common among positive cases, while close contact (9%), fever (0%) and healthcare occupation (0%) were not. No positive cases required intensive respiratory support in the ED. Conclusions: The volume of ED patients with suspected COVID‐19 is increasing. Low numbers of positive cases precluded development of accurate predictive tools, but the COVED Project is fulfilling an important role in monitoring the burden of infection prevention and control requirements on the ED. The increasing number of patients meeting isolation criteria has the potential to impact on patient flow and may lead to ED overcrowding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In Australia, the current ED burden related to COVID‐19 is from 'suspected' rather than 'confirmed' cases. The initial aim of the Registry for Emergency Care (REC) Project is to determine the impact of isolation processes on the emergency care of all patients. Methods: The REC Project builds on the COVID‐19 Emergency Department Quality Improvement (COVED) Project. Outcomes measured include times to critical assessment and management. Results: Clinical tools will be generated to inform emergency care, both during and beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conclusions: The REC Project will support ED clinicians in the emergency care of all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The COVID‐19 Emergency Department (COVED) Quality Improvement Project aims to provide regular and real‐time clinical information to ED clinicians caring for patients with suspected and confirmed COVID‐19. The present study summarises data from the first 2 weeks of the study. Methods: COVED is an ongoing prospective cohort study that commenced on 1 April 2020. It includes all adult patients presenting to a participating ED who undergo testing for SARS‐CoV‐2. Data are collected prospectively and entered into a bespoke registry. Outcomes include a positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction test result and requirement for intensive respiratory support. Results: In the period 1–14 April 2020, 240 (16%) of 1508 patients presenting to The Alfred Emergency and Trauma Centre met inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 (5%) tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. The mean age of patients was 60 years and the commonest symptoms were acute shortness of breath (n = 122 [67%]), cough (n = 108 [56%]) or fever (n = 98 [51%]). Overseas travel or known contact with a confirmed case was reported by 24 (14%) and 16 (10%) patients, respectively. Fever or hypoxia was recorded in 23 (10%) and 11 (5%) patients, respectively. Eleven (5%) patients received mechanical ventilation in the ED, of whom none tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. Conclusions: Among patients presenting to a tertiary ED with suspected COVID‐19, only a small proportion tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. Although the low incidence of positive cases currently precludes the development of predictive tools, the COVED Project demonstrates that the rapid establishment of an agile clinical registry for emergency care is feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There is an urgency to support Australian ED clinicians with real‐time tools as the COVID‐19 pandemic evolves. The COVID‐19 Emergency Department (COVED) Quality Improvement Project has commenced and will provide flexible and responsive clinical tools to determine the predictors of key ED‐relevant clinical outcomes. Methods: The COVED Project includes all adult patients presenting to a participating ED and meeting contemporary testing criteria for COVID‐19. The dataset has been embedded in the electronic medical record and the COVED Registry has been developed. Results: Outcomes measured include being COVID‐19 positive and requiring intensive respiratory support. Regression methodology will be used to generate clinical prediction tools. Conclusion: This project will support EDs during this pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report the incidence of fever among patients who tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients who tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 at a single centre. Temperature at time of testing and on repeat testing within 24 h were collected. Results: At the time of testing, fever was detected (sensitivity) in 16 of 86 (19%; 95% confidence interval 11–28) episodes of positive tests for SARS‐CoV‐2. With repeat testing, fever was detected in 18 of 75 (24%; 95% confidence interval 15–35) episodes. Conclusions: In an Australian hospital, screening for fever lacked sensitivity for detection of patients with SARS‐CoV‐2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the introduction of an analgesic ladder and targeted education on oxycodone use for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED)., Design: A retrospective pre-post implementation study was conducted. Data were extracted for patients presenting from June to July 2016 (preintervention) and June to July 2017 (post-intervention)., Setting: The EDs of a major metropolitan health service and an affiliated community-based hospital., Participants: Patients with back pain where nonpharmacological interventions such as mobilization and physiotherapy are recommended as the mainstay of treatment., Interventions: A modified analgesic ladder introduced in May 2017. The ladder promoted the use of simple analgesics such as paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) prior to opioids and tramadol in preference to oxycodone in selected patients., Main Outcome Measure(s): The proportion of patients prescribed oxycodone and total doses administered., Results: There were 107 patients pre and 107 post-intervention included in this study. After implementation of the analgesic ladder, 78 (72.9 percent) preintervention patients and 55 (51.4 percent) post-intervention patients received oxycodone in ED (p = 0.001). The median oxycodone doses administered in the ED was 14 mg (interquartile range: 5-20 mg) and 5 mg (interquartile range: 5-10 mg; p < 0.001), respectively. On discharge from hospital, a prescription for oxycodone was issued for 36 (33.6 percent) patients preintervention and 26 (24.3 percent) patients post-intervention (p = 0.13)., Conclusions: Among patients with back pain, implementation of a modified analgesic ladder was associated with a statistically significant but modest reduction in oxycodone prescription. Consideration of multifaceted interventions to produce major and sustained changes in opioid prescribing is required.