Search

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.Emergency medicine pharmacists (EMPs) have been demonstrated to have a positive impact on patient outcomes in a variety of clinical scenarios in the emergency department (ED), yet their distribution across the nation is suboptimal. An emergency medicine pharmacy intensity score tool (EMPIST) would not only facilitate the quantification of EMP staffing needs and ideal resource deployment times, but would also allow practitioners to triage patient care activities. The purpose of this investigation was to develop an EMPIST and evaluate its relationship to EMP activities.This was a multicenter, prospective, observational analysis of an EMPIST developed by practicing EMPs. EMPs prospectively documented their clinical activities during usual care for patients in their ED. Spearman's rank-order correlation was used to determine any correlation between the EMPIST and pharmacist activities.In total, 970 EMP activities and 584 EMPIST items were documented in 352 patients by 7 EMPs across 7 different EDs. The most commonly documented EMP interventions performed were bedside monitoring (12.7%), initiation of nonantimicrobial therapy (12.6%), and antimicrobial therapy initiation and streamlining (10.6%). The total EMPIST was found to significantly correlate with EMP activities, and this correlation was consistent across both "diagnostic/presentation" and "medication" items (P0.001 for all comparisons).The EMPIST significantly correlated with EMP activities, with consistent correlation across all subgroups. Its utilization has the potential to enhance bedside clinical practice and optimize the deployment of limited EMP services. Additional investigations are needed to examine the validity of this tool and identify any relationship it may have to patient outcomes.

Introduction: Methadone is a mu-opioid agonist with a delayed time to peak concentration that requires an extended period of monitoring following an overdose. Available data suggests that the combination of psychostimulants with methadone may augment antinociception and tolerance to opioids. Case Report: A 26-year-old male (83.9 kg) presented to the ED approximately 1 hour after unintentionally ingesting 200-250 mg of liquid methadone and an energy drink, along with 20 mg of dextroamphetamine/amphetamine prior to the event. Vital signs were: blood pressure (BP), 143/91 mmHg; heart rate (HR), 74; respirations (RR), 16; oxygen saturation 95% on room air. His urine drug screen was positive for amphetamines and methadone. Patient was monitored for 4 hours with no change in status and was discharged home. Approximately 26 hours later patient was found cyanotic and apneic. Patient was given 2 mg of naloxone and awoke with normal mental status. On presentation the patient’s vital signs were: BP, 114/70 mmHg; HR, 114; RR 16; oxygen saturation 94% on 3 liters nasal cannula. During his ED stay, he required 2 doses of naloxone secondary to oxygen desaturation and was admitted to the hospital. His repeat urine drug screen was positive for amphetamines and methadone. The patient was discharged the following day. Discussion: This case illustrates an unintentional methadone overdose combined with the intentional ingestion of an energy drink and dextroamphetamine/amphetamine that possibly masked the toxicity for over 24 hrs. Monitoring parameters for methadone overdoses may need re-evaluation in the setting of the co-ingestion of a stimulant.

Patients with hematological malignancies, both treated and untreated, or solid tumors undergoing treatment are at risk of life-threatening complications, which may present in the emergency department (ED). Such emergencies are diverse in etiology and often require prompt treatment. Traditional complications, such as febrile neutropenia, have had recent guideline updates, which incorporate new evidence and a new validated risk stratification tool. In addition, newer approaches to treatment, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, are becoming more widely available and have unique associated toxicities. This review discusses the management of the following hematological and oncological emergencies likely to be encountered in the ED: febrile neutropenia, CAR T-cell toxicities, differentiation syndrome, tumor lysis syndrome, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and hyponatremia.

Propofol is a frequently used agent for procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED). Some have suggested that propofol dosing in this setting should be adjusted in elderly patients; however, limited data exist supporting this recommendation. Additional factors that may contribute to altered propofol dose requirements in this setting have not been thoroughly explored. The objective of this analysis was to ascertain the effect age may have on the propofol dose required during procedural sedation in the ED. This retrospective study was conducted at a Level 1 academic medical center ED and included patients 18 years or older who received propofol for procedural sedation from 2015 to 2017. Those patients who were 18-64 years of age were compared with those 65 years or older. Between the two groups, total and weight-based propofol requirements for sedation, opioid doses, and adverse events were compared. This analysis included 101 procedural sedations. The median induction dose and opioid requirements before or during the procedure were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with patients 18-64 years of age, those 65 years or older had significantly less total weight-based propofol requirements (p = 0.024) and required less total propofol for sedation (p = 0.007). In addition, patients 65 years or older required fewer repeat doses of propofol during the procedure than younger patients (p = 0.043). The incidence of adverse effects, including respiratory suppression, was not significantly different between the two groups. Patients 65 years or older may have lower weight-based propofol dosing requirements than younger patients. Utilizing a reduced total dose and repeat dosing strategy for propofol in this setting may be indicated. Further investigations are recommended to clarify factors that signal the need for more tailored dosing.