Characteristics of Suicidal Attempters with Acute Poisoning Who Discharged Against Psychiatric Medical Advice and Emergency Department Admission as an Acute Intervention

PURPOSE: Discharge against medical advice (DAMA) carries a risk of increased mortality and readmissions in the emergency department (ED). The aim of the current study was to examine characteristics of suicidal attempters with acute poisoning who were discharged against psychiatric medical advice and other clinical department admission as acute intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively selected a consecutive series of suicidal attempters with acute poisoning who were admitted to the emergency department between 2011 and 2012. Sex, age, admission time, psychiatric DAMA, impressions by the Psychiatrist-in-charge, and psychiatry follow-up after discharge were reviewed in the medical records. DAMA was defined as an unplanned discharge for which the psychiatrist-in-charge documented in the medical record that the patient or one's legally authorized representatives decided to refuse hospitalization against the psychiatrist's medical advice including closed ward admission. RESULTS: A total of 883 patients who had attempted suicide who visited the emergency department were included. Of these, 155 patients were suicidal attempters with acute poisoning for ED ward admission. Among these patients, the rate of psychiatric DAMA was 66.5% (n=103). Psychiatric impressions were 1) adjustment disorder 51.5% (n=53), 2) major depressive disorder 28.2% (29%). The rate of DAMA was higher in the adjustment disorder group than in the major depressive disorder group (82.8% vs 58.7%, p <0.001). The rate of follow-up after hospital discharge to the psychiatric outpatient department was 26.5% (n=27). CONCLUSION: Admission to the emergency department may improve psychiatric outpatient department referral in suicidal attempters with acute poisoning. In addition, customized plans according to psychiatric diagnosis will be considered for effective acute intervention and continuous psychiatric referral.

Flumazenil administration in suspected patients with acute hypnotics and sedatives poisoning: risk-benefit re-evaluation

PURPOSE: The use of flumazenil administration in the emergency department is still controversial because of concerns about adverse effects. The present study was conducted to re-evaluate the risk-benefit ratio associated with flumazenil administration to patients suspected of having acute hypnotics and sedatives poisoning in the emergency department. METHODS: A retrospective chart review study was conducted for patients whose final diagnoses were “poisoning” and “benzodiazepine” or “sedatives-hypnotics” from Mar. 2006 to Feb. 2015. The basal characteristics of the patients, including past medical history, ingredients and dose of ingested drug and co-ingested drugs were investigated. For patients administered flumazenil, responsiveness and time from admission to flumazenil administration were investigated with supplement. All collected data were analyzed in aspect terms of risk/benefit. RESULTS: A total of 678 patients were included in our study. Benzodiazepine was the most common sedative/hypnotic drug prescribed, and the frequency of prescription continuously increased. The proportion of TCA as co-ingestion decreased from 13.1% to 3.9% in patients with acute sedative/hypnotic poisoning. Flumazenil was administered to 55 patients (8.1%), of which 29 patients (52.7%) were applied to contraindications. Fifty-three patients (96.4%) showed positive responsiveness, including partial responsiveness after flumazenil administration. No severe adverse events were identified. CONCLUSION: Based on the current trends in prescription patterns for sedative/hypnotic drugs, increased use of non-TCA antidepressants, and responsiveness to administration of flumazenil, benefit seemed weighted more in this study, although the observed benefits were based on limited results. Further prospective multicenter studies will be needed to optimize benefit-risk ratio.