Updates in the Assessment and Management of Agitation.

Agitated patients can be dangerous to themselves and others. In fact, severe medical complications and death can occur with severe agitation. Because of this, agitation is considered a medical and psychiatric emergency. Regardless of the treatment setting, identifying the agitated patient early is a necessary skill. The authors review relevant literature regarding the identification and management of agitation and summarize current recommendations for adults, as well as children and adolescents.

Boarding of Mentally Ill Patients in Emergency Departments: American Psychiatric Association Resource Document.

The treatment of severe mental illness has undergone a paradigm shift over the last fifty years, away from a primary emphasis on hospital-based care and toward community-based care. Some of the forces driving this deinstitutionalization have been scientific and patient-centered, such as better differentiation between acute and subacute risk, innovations in outpatient and crisis care (assertive community treatment programs, dialectical behavioral therapy, treatment-oriented psychiatric emergency services), gradually improving psychopharmacology, and an increased appreciation of the negative effect of coercive hospitalization, except when risk is very high. On the other hand, some of the forces have been less focused on patient needs: budget-driven cuts in public hospital beds divorced from population-based need; managed care's profit-driven impact on private psychiatric hospitals and outpatient services; and purported patient-centered approaches promoting non-hospital care that may under-recognize that some extremely ill patients need years of painstaking effort to make a community transition. The result has been a reconfiguration of the country's mental health system that, at times, leaves large numbers of people without adequate mental health and substance abuse services. Often their only option is to seek care in medical emergency department's (ED's) that are not designed for their needs. Increasingly, many of those individuals end up waiting in ED's for appropriate care and disposition for hours or days. This overflow phenomenon has become so prevalent in ED's that it has been given a name: "boarding". This practice is almost certainly detrimental to patients and staff, and it has spawned efforts on multiple fronts to understand and resolve it. When considering solutions, both ED-focused and system-wide considerations must be explored. This resource document provides an overview and recommendations regarding this complex topic. Reprinted with permission from American Psychiatric Association. Copyright © 2019.

Contemporary Practices for Medical Evaluation of the Psychiatric Patient in the Emergency Department.

Although emergency department (ED) visits for patients with mental illness are frequent, medical evaluation (i.e., "medical screening") of patients presenting with psychiatric complaints is inconsistent. This may largely be related to differing goals for medical screening, which often vary according to specialty. Although emergency physicians typically focus on stabilization of life-threatening diseases, psychiatrists tend to believe that care in the ED is more comprehensive, which often places the two fields at odds. The authors discuss the concept of medical screening, review the literature on this topic, and offer a clinically oriented update to the 2017 American Association for Emergency Psychiatry consensus guidelines on medical evaluation of the adult psychiatric patient in the ED.

Adherence to guideline creation recommendations for suicide prevention in the emergency department: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Suicide rates in the United States rose 35.2% from 1999-2018. As emergency department (ED) providers often have limited training in management of suicidal patients and minimal access to mental health experts, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may improve care for these patients. However, clinical practice guidelines that do not adhere to quality standards for development may be harmful both to patients, if they promote practices based on flawed evidence, and to ED providers, if used in malpractice claims. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine created standards to determine the trustworthiness of CPGs. This review assessed the adherence of suicide prevention CPGs, intended for the ED, to these standards. Secondary objectives were to assess the association of adherence both with first author/organization specialty (ED vs non-ED) and with inclusion of recommendations on substance use, a potent risk factor for suicide. METHODS: This is a systematic review of available suicide-prevention CPGs for the ED in both peer-reviewed and gray literature. This review followed the PRISMA standards for reporting systematic reviews. RESULTS: Of 22 included CPGs, the 7 ED-sponsored CPGs had higher adherence to quality standards (3.1 vs 2.4) and included the highest-rated CPG (ICAR2E) identified by this review. Regardless of specialty, nearly all CPGs included some mention of identifying or managing substance use. CONCLUSIONS: Most suicide prevention CPGs intended for the ED are written by non-ED first authors or organizations and have low adherence to quality standards. Future CPGs should be developed with more scientific rigor, include a multidisciplinary writing group, and be created by authors working in the practice environment to which the CPG applies.

ED recommendations for suicide prevention in adults: The ICAR2E mnemonic and a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Caring for suicidal patients can be challenging, especially in emergency departments without easy access to mental health specialists. The American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention appointed a working group to create an easy-to-use suicide prevention tool for ED providers. METHODS: The writing group created an easy-to-use mnemonic for the care of adult patients as a way of organizing sequential steps, accompanied by a systematic review of available ED-based suicide prevention literature. The systematic review was performed both to ensure that all relevant evidence was taken into account as well as to evaluate the strength of evidence for each recommendation. Levels of evidence were assigned utilizing the ACEP level of evidence classification. RESULTS: The writing group created the mnemonic ICAR2E, which stands for Identify suicide risk; Communicate; Assess for life threats and ensure safety; Risk assessment (of suicide); Reduce the risk (of suicide); and Extend care beyond the ED. 31 articles were identified in the search, and were included in the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The ICAR2E mnemonic may be a feasible way for practicing ED clinicians to provide evidence-based care to suicidal patients. However, further research is needed.

Boarding of Mentally Ill Patients in Emergency Departments: American Psychiatric Association Resource Document.

The treatment of severe mental illness has undergone a paradigm shift over the last 50 years, away from a primary emphasis on hospital-based care and toward community-based care. Some of the forces driving this deinstitutionalization have been scientific and patient-centered, such as better differentiation between acute and subacute risk, innovations in outpatient and crisis care (assertive community treatment programs, dialectical behavioral therapy, treatment-oriented psychiatric emergency services), gradually improving psychopharmacology, and an increased appreciation of the negative effect of coercive hospitalization, except when risk is very high. On the other hand, some of the forces have been less focused on patient needs: budget-driven cuts in public hospital beds divorced from population-based need; managed care's profit-driven impact on private psychiatric hospitals and outpatient services; and purported patient-centered approaches promoting non-hospital care that may under-recognize that some extremely ill patients need years of painstaking effort to make a community transition.The result has been a reconfiguration of the country's mental health system that, at times, leaves large numbers of people without adequate mental health and substance abuse services. Often their only option is to seek care in medical emergency departments (ED) that have not been designed for the needs of mentally ill patients. Increasingly, many of those individuals end up waiting in EDs for appropriate care and disposition for hours or days. This overflow phenomenon has become so prevalent that it has been given a name: "boarding." This practice is almost certainly detrimental to patients and staff, and it has spawned efforts on multiple fronts to understand and resolve it. When considering solutions, both ED-focused and systemwide considerations must be explored. This resource document provides an overview and recommendations regarding this complex topic.

Opportunities for Research in Mental Health Emergencies: Executive Summary and Methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the ever-increasing numbers of mental health patients presenting to United States emergency departments, there are large gaps in knowledge about acute care of the behavioral health patient. To address this important problem, the Coalition on Psychiatric Emergencies convened a research consensus conference in December 2016 consisting of clinical researchers, clinicians from emergency medicine, psychiatry and psychology, and representatives from governmental agencies and patient advocacy groups. METHODS: Participants used a standardized methodology to select and rank research questions in the order of importance to both researchers and patients. RESULTS: Three working groups (geriatrics, substance use disorders, and psychosis) reached consensus on 26 questions within their respective domains. These questions are summarized in this document. CONCLUSION: The research consensus conference is the first of its kind to include non-clinicians in helping identify knowledge gaps in behavioral emergencies. It is hoped that these questions will prove useful to prioritize future research within the specialty.

A Research Agenda for Assessment and Management of Psychosis in Emergency Department Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) manage a wide variety of critical medical presentations. Traumatic, neurologic, and cardiac crises are among the most prevalent types of emergencies treated in an ED setting. The high volume of presentations has led to collaborative partnerships in research and process development between experts in emergency medicine (EM) and other disciplines. While psychosis is a medical emergency frequently treated in the ED, there remains a paucity of evidence-based literature highlighting best practices for management of psychotic presentations in the ED. In the absence of collaborative research, development of best practice guidelines cannot begin. A working group convened to develop a set of high-priority research questions to address the knowledge gaps in the care of psychotic patients in the ED. This article is the product of a subgroup considering "Special Populations: Psychotic Spectrum Disorders," from the 2016 Coalition on Psychiatric Emergencies first Research Consensus Conference on Acute Mental Illness. METHODS: Participants were identified with expertise in psychosis from EM, emergency psychiatry, emergency psychology, clinical research, governmental agencies, and patient advocacy groups. Background literature reviews were performed prior to the in-person meeting. A nominal group technique was employed to develop group consensus on the highest priority research gaps. Following the nominal group technique, input was solicited from all participants during the meeting, questions were iteratively focused and revised, voted on, and then ranked by importance. RESULTS: The group developed 28 separate questions. After clarification and voting, the group identified six high-priority research areas. These questions signify the perceived gaps in psychosis research in emergency settings. Questions were further grouped into two topic areas: screening and identification; and intervention and management strategies. CONCLUSION: While psychosis has become a more common presentation in the ED, standardized screening, intervention, and outcome measurement for psychosis has not moved beyond attention to agitation management. As improved outpatient-intervention protocols are developed for treatment of psychosis, it is imperative that parallel protocols are developed for delivery in the ED setting.

Study Enrollment When "Preconsent" Is Utilized for a Randomized Clinical Trial of Two Treatments for Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) represents a danger to both patients and their caregivers. Medication is often needed, and few high-quality randomized trials have evaluated the optimal drugs for this vulnerable population. In the United States, as of 2017, randomized trials of drugs typically cannot be conducted under Waiver of Consent (46 CFR 45.116), and Exception From Informed Consent trials (21 CFR 50.24) are limited to life-threatening conditions, are onerous, and require filing an investigational new drug application with the FDA. We sought to conduct a randomized double-dummy trial of inhaled loxapine versus intramuscular haloperidol + lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED by obtaining consent in advance ("preconsent") in patients at risk of future agitation, allowing study drug administration up to 3 years later if the patient presented with acute agitation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to report the successful enrollment rate of patients preconsented at an earlier ED visit for this trial. METHODS: This was an analysis of patients age 18 to 64 with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia preconsented for enrollment in the trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02877108) conducted at a single urban academic center seeing approximately 60,000 patients per year. Eligible patients were assessed for capacity to consent by trained research associates, and informed consent was obtained at an ED visit for the possibility of administering drugs for agitation within the next 3 years. In the event the patient later presented to the ED and the attending physician deemed the patient required treatment for acute agitation, preconsent was confirmed and study drug would be administered. RESULTS: Over 67 days, 1,461 patients were screened in the ED, 269 had bipolar I or schizophrenia, 194 of whom had a contraindication to inhaled loxapine leaving 75 eligible patients; preconsent was obtained in 43 patients. Four additional patients who had not preconsented were consented for the trial in real time (three by surrogate, one patient had capacity while agitated) resulting in a total of 47 consented patients. Of these 47, a total of 12 were later removed from the study: 10 patients had unrecognized exclusion criteria for inhaled loxapine, one preconsented patient contacted the investigators at a later date and asked to be removed, and one surrogate revoked consent immediately after providing it. Only two patients were successfully enrolled, neither by preconsent: one was enrolled via a surrogate the day of enrollment, and the other was mildly agitated and had capacity to consent. The remaining patient with a valid surrogate consent did not receive study medication. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of preconsent to enroll patients in a randomized trial of treatments for acute agitation in the ED requires substantial resources and may not be feasible.

Medical Screening of Mental Health Patients in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with psychiatric complaints often require medical screening to evaluate for a medical cause of their symptoms. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the existing literature on the medical screening of psychiatric patients and establish recommendations for ideal screening practices in Western-style EDs. METHODS: PubMed, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for clinical studies examining the medical screening of adult psychiatric patients in the ED or inappropriate referrals to psychiatry. Articles were graded using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) grading tool and sorted into topics. A 3-level grading algorithm used by other emergency medicine organizations was used to evaluate the strength of the evidence for each recommendation. RESULTS: Sixty articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most published literature on medical screening consisted of nonrandomized studies with a high risk of bias. Some screening procedures, such as history and physical examination, were extensively recommended. Other screening procedures received mixed recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available literature, physician experts developed 7 recommendations. For a patient with known psychiatric disease presenting with symptom exacerbation, medical screening should include a full medical and psychiatric history, a targeted physical examination, and a mental status examination. Urine toxicology screening and nonurine drug screen laboratory testing should not be routinely performed. Additional screening tests may be valuable for patients with new-onset psychiatric symptoms who are ≥65 years of age, are immunosuppressed, or have concomitant medical disease. However, additional studies on this topic with more rigorous methodology must be conducted to establish definitive guidelines.

Suicide screening scales may not adequately predict disposition of suicidal patients from the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Suicide screening scales have been advocated for use in the ED setting. However, it is currently unknown whether patients classified as low-risk on these scales can be safely discharged from the emergency department. This study evaluated the utility of three commonly-used suicide screening tools in the emergency department to predict ED disposition, with special interest in discharge among low-risk patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled a convenience sample of patients who answered "yes" to a triage suicidal ideation question in an urban academic emergency department. Patients were administered the weighted modified SADPERSONS Scale, Suicide Assessment Five-step Evaluation and Triage, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. Patients who subsequently received a psychiatric evaluation were included, and the utility of these screening tools to predict disposition was evaluated. RESULTS: 276 subjects completed all three suicide screening tools and were included in data analyses. Eighty-two patients (30%) were admitted or transferred. Three patients (1%) died by suicide within one year of enrollment; one was hospitalized at the end of his or her enrollment visit, dying by suicide seven months later and the other two were discharged, dying by suicide nine and ten months later, respectively. The screening tools exhibited modest negative predictive values (range: 0.66-0.73). CONCLUSION: Three suicide screening tools displayed modest ability to predict the disposition of patients who presented to an emergency department with suicidal ideation. This study supports the current ACEP clinical policy on psychiatric patients which states that screening tools should not be used in isolation to guide disposition decisions of suicidal patients from the ED.

Risperidone in the Emergency Setting is Associated with More Hypotension in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: Expert consensus panels have recommended risperidone as first-line treatment for agitation of psychiatric origin. However, there are few if any studies on this medication in the emergency setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the hemodynamic effects of risperidone in an emergency department (ED) setting, stratified by age. METHODS: This is a structured chart review of all patients who received oral risperidone over a 6-year period in an ED setting, excluding patients who received this medication as a prescription refill. Vital signs were analyzed for this subset prior to and after medication administration, and changes in vital signs were stratified by age. RESULTS: The median dose of risperidone was less in patients aged > 65 years. However, the median drop in systolic blood pressure was larger in this age group compared with younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians tend to be more cautious with dosing of risperidone to geriatric patients in the ED. Despite this, decreases in systolic blood pressure are larger and more frequent in this age group. When possible, clinicians should consider or attempt nonpharmacologic methods of agitation treatment prior to administering medications such as risperidone to elderly patients.

American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Task Force on Medical Clearance of Adult Psychiatric Patients. Part II: Controversies over Medical Assessment, and Consensus Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: The emergency medical evaluation of psychiatric patients presenting to United States emergency departments (ED), usually termed "medical clearance," often varies between EDs. A task force of the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry (AAEP), consisting of physicians from emergency medicine, physicians from psychiatry and a psychologist, was convened to form consensus recommendations for the medical evaluation of psychiatric patients presenting to U.S.EDs. METHODS: The task force reviewed existing literature on the topic of medical evaluation of psychiatric patients in the ED and then combined this with expert consensus. Consensus was achieved by group discussion as well as iterative revisions of the written document. The document was reviewed and approved by the AAEP Board of Directors. RESULTS: Eight recommendations were formulated. These recommendations cover various topics in emergency medical examination of psychiatric patients, including goals of medical screening in the ED, the identification of patients at low risk for co-existing medical disease, key elements in the ED evaluation of psychiatric patients including those with cognitive disorders, specific language replacing the term "medical clearance," and the need for better science in this area. CONCLUSION: The evidence indicates that a thorough history and physical examination, including vital signs and mental status examination, are the minimum necessary elements in the evaluation of psychiatric patients. With respect to laboratory testing, the picture is less clear and much more controversial.

American Association for Emergency Psychiatry Task Force on Medical Clearance of Adults Part I: Introduction, Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, the number of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) for a mental health concern is significant and expected to grow. The breadth of the medical evaluation of these patients is controversial. Attempts have been made to establish a standard evaluation for these patients, but to date no nationally accepted standards exist. A task force of the American Association of Emergency Psychiatry, consisting of physicians from emergency medicine and psychiatry, and a psychologist was convened to form consensus recommendations on the medical evaluation of psychiatric patients presenting to EDs. METHODS: The task force reviewed existing literature on the topic of medical evaluation of psychiatric patients in the ED (Part I) and then combined this with expert consensus (Part II). RESULTS: In Part I, we discuss terminological issues and existing evidence on medical exams and laboratory studies of psychiatric patients in the ED. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians should work cooperatively with psychiatric receiving facilities to decrease unnecessary testing while increasing the quality of medical screening exams for psychiatric patients who present to EDs.