Search

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]

This perspective article summarises the experience of conducting a multicentre research project. We describe expected and unexpected hurdles we experienced as well as suggesting possible solutions for researchers embarking on multicentre studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We aimed to provide 'adequate analgesia' (which decreases the pain score by ≥2 and to <4 [0-10 scale]) and determine the effect on patient satisfaction. Methods: We undertook a multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled, intervention trial in nine EDs. Patients with moderate pain (pain score of ≥4) were eligible for inclusion. The intervention was a range of educational activities to encourage staff to provide 'adequate analgesia'. It was introduced into five early intervention EDs between the 0 and 6 months time points and at four late intervention EDs between 3 and 6 months. At 0, 3 and 6 months, data were collected on demographics, pain scores, analgesia provided and pain management satisfaction 48 h post-discharge (6 point scale). Results: Overall, 1317 patients were enrolled. Logistic regression (controlling for site and other confounders) indicated that, between 0 and 3 months, satisfaction increased significantly at the early intervention EDs (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 3.4 [P< 0.01]) but was stable at the control EDs (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.3 [P = 0.35]). Pooling of data from all sites indicated that the proportion of patients very satisfied with their pain management increased from 42.9% immediately pre-interven-tion to 53.9% after 3 months of intervention (difference in proportions 11.0%, 95% CI 4.2 to 17.8 [P = 0.001]). Logistic regression of all data indicated that 'adequate analgesia' was significantly associated with patient satisfaction (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.8 [P<0.01]). Conclusions: The 'adequate analgesia' intervention significantly improved patient satisfaction. It provides a simple and efficient target in the pursuit of best-practice ED pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]