Association between antibiotic administration before discharge and emergency department length of stay for urinary tract infection: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with urinary tract infections (UTIs) may have treatment initiated in the emergency department (ED) before discharge with an antibiotic prescription. The effect of a single antibiotic dose administered before discharge on ED length of stay (LOS) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the LOS and the rate of revisits within 30 days among patients diagnosed as having UTIs other than pyelonephritis who received parenteral, oral, or no antibiotic during an ED visit. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with a diagnosis of UTI who received an antibiotic prescription at discharge from a single community ED in the United States between 2019 and 2020. Patients were excluded if they were admitted to the hospital, were diagnosed as having pyelonephritis, or had an ED visit in the previous 30 days. ED LOS was compared using 3-factor analysis of variance. ED revisits at 72 hours and 30 days were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 694 patients with an ED visit for UTI and an antibiotic prescription at discharge were included. The mean age of the study population was 58 years. Parenteral antibiotic administration in the ED was associated with a 60-minute increase in ED LOS compared with those who received an oral antibiotic (P < 0.001) and a 30-minute increase in ED LOS compared with no antibiotic (P < 0.001). No differences were observed in revisits to the ED at 72 hours (5%, 5%, 2%; P = 0.17) or 30 days (15%, 16%, 17%: P = 0.98) among patients who received parenteral, oral, or no antibiotic before discharge. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of parenteral antibiotic before discharge was associated with an increased ED LOS compared with treatment with oral antibiotic or discharge without ED treatment. ED revisit rates were similar regardless of ED treatment.

Exploration of Norepinephrine Dose-Capping Practices: Report From an International, Interprofessional Survey of Critical Care Clinicians.

Purpose: The Joint Commission standards for titrated infusions require specification of maximum rates of infusion. This practice has led to the development of protocolized maximum doses that can be overridden by provider order ("soft maximums") and to dose caps that cannot be superseded ("hard maximums"). The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of and attitudes towards dose capping of norepinephrine. Methods: A 20-item cross-sectional survey assessing norepinephrine dose capping practices, perceptions of norepinephrine protocols, and respondent and practice site demographics was distributed electronically to the mailing list of an international medical podcast. Responses were stratified according to use of weight-based dosing (WBD) or non-WBD of norepinephrine. The primary objective was to characterize norepinephrine dosing practices including protocolized maximum doses and/or dose capping. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively, with P < .05 indicating statistical significance. Results: The survey was completed by 586 physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and advanced practice providers. WBD was used by 51% and non-WBD by 47%. A standardized titration protocol was reported by 65% and dose capping was reported by 19%. The protocolized maximum dose ranged from 20-400 mcg/min for respondents using non-WBD (median [interquartile range] 30 [30-50]) and ranged from .2-10 mcg/kg/min for respondents using WBD (1 [.5-3]). The dose cap was 50 (40-123) mcg/min with non-WBD and 2 (1-3) mcg/kg/min with WBD. Conclusions: An international, multi-professional survey of critical care and emergency medicine clinicians revealed wide variability in norepinephrine dosing practices including maximum doses allowed.

Evaluation of Intravenous Push Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Time to Antibiotic Administration in Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if intravenous push (IVP) administration of piperacillin-tazobactam reduced the time to antibiotic administration compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) in emergency department (ED) patients who present with sepsis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with sepsis who received piperacillin-tazobactam before and after implementation of an IVPB to IVP conversion protocol. Results: A total of 486 charts were reviewed and the final analysis included 127 patients in each group. The mean time to administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was 67 (± 48) minutes and 58 (± 36) minutes in the IVPB and IVP cohorts, respectively (P = NS). The time to administration of secondary antibiotics was reduced by 38 minutes in patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam by IVP (105 min ±69 vs 67 min ±37; P < .001). Nurse administration time was reduced by 11 min for piperacillin-tazobactam (54 min ±46 vs 43 min ±33; P = .034) and 40 min for secondary antibiotics (90 min ±67 vs 50 min ±32; P = < .001) in the IVP group. There was no difference in hypersensitivity reactions, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Conclusion: Conversion from piperacillin-tazobactam IVPB to IVP was associated with a reduction in time to piperacillin-tazobactam and secondary antibiotic administration in emergency department patients with sepsis. Further prospective research is needed to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with IVP administration.

Clinical outcomes of concomitant use of enteral and intravenous sedatives and analgesics in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential differences in days on mechanical ventilation for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on route of administration of analgesic and sedative medications: intravenous (IV) alone vs IV + enteral (EN). SUMMARY: This institutional review board-approved study evaluated ventilation time and fentanyl or midazolam requirements with or without concurrent EN hydromorphone and lorazepam. Patients were included in the study if they were 18 to 89 years old and were admitted to the intensive care unit with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction or antigen test and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, 100 patients were evaluated, 60 in the IV-only group and 40 in the IV + EN group. There was not a significant difference in ventilation time between the groups (mean [SD], 19.6 [12.8] days for IV + EN vs 15.6 [11.2] days for IV only; P = 0.104). However, fentanyl (2,064 [847] µg vs 2,443 [779] µg; P < 0.001) and midazolam (137 [72] mg vs 158 [70] mg; P = 0.004) requirements on day 3 were significantly higher in the IV-only group, and the increase in fentanyl requirements from day 1 to day 3 was greater in the IV-only group than in the IV + EN group (378 [625] µg vs 34 [971] µg; P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Addition of EN analgesic and sedative medications to those administered by the IV route did not change the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, but the combination may reduce IV opioid requirements, decreasing the impact of IV medication shortages.

Transient amnesia following prehospital low-dose ketamine administration.

Low doses of ketamine have been shown to be safe and effective for pain relief. Adverse effects are generally mild and transient. A 69-year-old woman suffered a witnessed ground-level fall without report of head injury, loss of consciousness, or intoxication. She was in severe pain despite 10 mg of intravenous morphine and paramedics provided intravenous ketamine 16 mg (0.19 mg/kg). Upon arrival to the ED, she was alert and oriented. An X-ray demonstrated an acute comminuted nondisplaced right humeral head and neck fracture. Her pain improved after an additional 4 mg of morphine and placement of a sling. Prior to discharge, the patient developed confusion, difficulty finding words, amnesia to the event, and anterograde amnesia evidenced by repetitive questioning. A head CT and a CT angiogram of the patient's head and neck demonstrated no acute abnormalities and an EEG demonstrated no epileptiform activity. The patient was admitted for observation and her mental status gradually improved overnight. She was discharged the following morning. Low dose ketamine is an important therapeutic option. Delayed or prolonged neuropsychiatric effects may be possible following combined ketamine and opioid analgesia. Clinicians utilizing low dose ketamine should be aware of this potential complication as it could result in the need for additional diagnostic testing and prolonged length of stay.

Blood glucose reduction in patients treated with insulin and dextrose for hyperkalaemia.

BACKGROUND: Dextrose is commonly administered with insulin during the management of hyperkalaemia to avoid hypoglycaemia. Previous research has evaluated the incidence of hypoglycaemia; however, none have reported the extent of blood glucose reduction after this regimen. The aim of this study was to better characterise the changes in blood glucose and to identify patients who may have an increased response to insulin. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study evaluating adult patients who received a regimen of 10 units of intravenous regular insulin plus 25 g of intravenous dextrose to manage hyperkalaemia between January 2014 and September 2016. The primary outcome was to evaluate the extent of blood glucose reduction (milligram per decilitre) up to 6 hours following the above regimen. Secondary outcomes included incidence of hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <70 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <40 mg/dL), and predictors of the extent of blood glucose reduction. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included. The median blood glucose change over 6 hours was -24 mg/dL (IQR -53 to 6 mg/dL). Hypoglycaemia developed in 20 patients (22.2%, 95% CI 14.1% to 32.2%) and five patients (5.6%, 95% CI 1.8% to 12.5%) had severe hypoglycaemia. Patients who developed hypoglycaemia had a median baseline blood glucose of 110 mg/dL (IQR 80 to 127 mg/dL), which decreased to a median value of 52 mg/dL (IQR 40 to 60 mg/dL). Higher baseline blood glucose was significantly associated with greater blood glucose reduction (coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.18, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of blood glucose reduction is variable and hypoglycaemia is common. The high incidence of hypoglycaemia highlights the importance of frequent blood glucose monitoring.

Effect of a legislative mandate on opioid prescribing for back pain in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: A change in Arizona State law in 2017 required prescribers to review data from a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) prior to opioid prescribing. The objective was to determine the effect of this change on opioid prescribing for patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) for back pain. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a 50-bed community ED in the United States. Consecutive adult patients who presented to the ED with back pain were included. Patients were categorized based on when they presented to the ED in reference to the law mandating PDMP review: 1) pre-PDMP and 2) post-PDMP. The outcome measures included the proportion of patients who were prescribed opioids upon discharge and the total amount of opioids prescribed per patient in oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME). RESULTS: A total of 268 patients were included (134 in pre-PDMP and 134 in post-PDMP). Opioid prescribing on discharge from the ED occurred in 46% (n = 62) of patients in the pre-PDMP group and 48% (n = 64) of patients in the post-PDMP group (difference 2%, 95% CI -11 to 13%). Of those who received opioid prescriptions, the median total prescribed MME was 75 mg (IQR 60-120 mg) in the pre-PDMP group and 75 mg (IQR 60-90) in the post-PDMP group (mean difference 8 mg, 95% CI -9 to 24 mg). CONCLUSION: A legislative requirement for provider PDMP review did not change opioid prescribing for patients in the ED who presented with back pain.

Medical and Nursing Staff Education Reduces Use of Prophylactic Ondansetron With Opioids in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the effect of a pharmacist-led educational intervention on administration of ondansetron in patients receiving IV opioid analgesia in the emergency department. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review undertaken in a single-community emergency department. During October and November 2015, emergency medicine pharmacists completed an educational initiative targeting medical and nursing staff designed to reduce prophylactic administration of ondansetron. The multifaceted educational initiative comprised of a link to an animated video, posters at strategic locations in the department, e-mail reminders, brief presentations during shift change, and 1-on-1 discussion (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvx8zKJBCCI). All patients who received IV morphine or hydromorphone during September and December 2015 were identified using pharmacy dispensing records, and 150 patients from each period were randomly selected for retrospective chart review. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of prophylactic administration of ondansetron with IV opioids for acute pain in the emergency department. RESULTS: The proportion of patients administered prophylactic ondansetron decreased from 41% in the preintervention period to 26% in the postintervention period (difference 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8 to 25.9, P = 0.005). Therapeutic use for documented nausea or vomiting upon presentation decreased marginally from 44% to 35% (difference 95% CI -2.3 to 19.7, P = 0.1). An overall decrease in the incidence of administration of ondansetron from 85% to 61% was observed (difference 95% CI 14.4 to 33.6, P < 0.001). No patient required rescue antiemetic administration. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and nursing staff education yielded a significant reduction in the administration of prophylactic ondansetron for patients receiving IV opioids in the emergency department.

Medication errors in psychiatric patients boarded in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Patients boarded in the emergency department (ED) with psychiatric complaints may be at risk for medication errors. However, no studies exist to characterize the types of errors and risk factors for errors in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterize medication errors in psychiatric patients boarded in ED, and to identify risk factors associated with these errors. METHODS: A prospective observational study conducted in a community ED included all patients seen in the ED for primary psychiatric complaints and remained in the ED pending transfer to a psychiatric facility. An investigator recorded all medication errors requiring an intervention by an emergency pharmacist. RESULTS: A total of 288 medication errors in 100 patients were observed. Overall, 65 patients had one or more medication errors. The majority of errors (n = 256, 89%) were due to errors of omission. The final severity classification of the medication errors was: Insignificant (n = 77), significant (n = 152), and serious (n = 3). In the multivariate analysis (R-squared 19.6%), increasing number of home medications (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36; p = 0.035), and increasing number of comorbidities (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.27; p = 0.022) were associated with the occurrence of medication errors. CONCLUSION: Psychiatric patients boarded in the ED commonly have medication errors that require intervention.

Hemorrhagic events lead to an increase in international normalized ratio in patients on warfarin.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to support a theory that in a cohort of patients on warfarin with bleeding and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR), the INR elevation was related to the bleeding episode and not necessarily over anticoagulation from warfarin. METHODS: The medical records of patients taking warfarin who presented with a bleeding event and high INR were reviewed over an 18-month period. Data collected included warfarin dose, INR, and hematocrit 90 days before and after the bleeding event. Patients were interviewed to ascertain whether any interactions with warfarin occurred which could explain the high INR. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were identified who presented with bleeding, a high INR, and no identifiable reason for the elevated INR. A significant increase in INR was observed from baseline to the event (2.5 ± 0.36 vs 6.2 ± 3.19; P = .0002), but the INR during all periods of follow-up did not differ from baseline (P = .35-.99). When compared with baseline, differences in the weekly warfarin dose reached statistical significance when all 12 weeks of follow-up were included (34 ± 13.8 mg vs 32 ± 15.5 mg; P = .01) but were not statistically significant when analyzed 4 to 12 weeks after the bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest that bleeding can result in an elevated INR in patients previously stable on warfarin.