RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We wanted to estimate the frequency and describe the nature of emergency department (ED) procedural sedation restrictions in the State of California. METHODS: We surveyed medical directors for all licensed EDs statewide regarding limitations on procedural sedation practice. Our primary outcome was the frequency of restrictions on procedural sedation, defined as an inability to administer moderate sedation, deep sedation, and typical ED sedative agents in accordance with American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) guidelines. Our secondary outcomes were the nature of these restrictions, who has imposed them, why they were imposed, and the perceived clinical impact. RESULTS: We obtained responses from 211 (64%) of the 328 EDs. Ninety-one (43%) reported conditional or total limitations on their ability to administer one or more of the following: moderate sedation, deep sedation, propofol, ketamine, or etomidate. Thirty-nine (18%) reported total restriction of at least one of these-most frequently a prohibition of deep sedation (18%). Local anesthesia directors were the most frequently cited creators and enforcers of these restrictions. Some respondents reported that, due to these restrictions, they used less effective sedatives, they performed procedures without sedation when sedation would have been preferred, and they observed inadequate sedation and pain control. CONCLUSIONS: In this statewide survey we found a substantial prevalence of practice limitations-mostly created by local anesthesia directors-that restrict the ability of emergency physicians to provide procedural sedation for their patients in accordance with ACEP guidelines. Deep sedation was prohibited in 18% of responding EDs. Our respondents describe adverse consequences to patient care.
