Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Am J Emerg Med ; 70: 133-139, 2023 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37290249

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Acute pain accounts for over 70% of Emergency Department (ED) visits. Sub-dissociative dose ketamine (0.1-0.6 mg/kg) is safe and effective for the management of acute pain in the ED. However, the optimal dose of intravenous ketamine that provides effective analgesia and minimizes the risk of adverse effects has yet to be identified. The objective of this study was to describe an effective analgesia dose range of IV ketamine for acute pain in the ED. METHODS: This multi-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients who received analgesic and sub-dissociative dose ketamine for the management of acute pain between May 5, 2018, and August 30, 2021, in 21 emergency departments at academic, community, and critical access hospitals across four states. Patients were excluded if they received ketamine for an indication other than pain, such as procedural sedation or intubation, or for whom there was incomplete documentation for the primary outcome. Patients who received a ketamine dose <0.3 mg/kg were stratified into the low-dose group, and those who received a dose of 0.3 mg/kg or higher to the high-dose group. The primary outcome was change in pain scores within 60 min using a standard 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse effects and use of rescue analgesics. Continuous variables were compared between dose groups using student t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. Linear regression was used to assess the association between the change in NRS pain scores within 60 min and dose after adjusting for baseline pain, requiring an additional dose of ketamine, and receiving an opioid. RESULTS: From 3796 patient encounters screened for receipt of ketamine, 384 patients met inclusion criteria including 258 in the low-dose group, and 126 in the high-dose group. The primary reason for exclusion was incomplete documentation of pain scores, or ketamine used for sedation. Median baseline pain scores were 8.2 in the low-dose group and 7.8 in the high-dose group (difference 0.5; 95% CI 0 to 1, p = 0.04). Both groups demonstrated significant reductions in their mean NRS pain scores within 60 min following the first administration of IV ketamine. There were no differences in the change in pain scores between both groups (-2.2 vs -2.6, mean difference 0.4, 95% CI -0.4 to 1.1, p = 0.34). Use of rescue analgesics (40.7% vs 36.5%, p = 0.43) and adverse effects were similar between groups, including early discontinuation of the ketamine infusion (37.2% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.99). Overall, the most common adverse effects were agitation (7.3%) and nausea (7.0%). CONCLUSION: The analgesic efficacy and safety of high-dose sub-dissociative ketamine (≥0.3 mg/kg) was not superior to low-dose (< 0.3 mg/kg) for the management of acute pain in the ED. Low-dose ketamine <0.3 mg/kg is an effective and safe pain management strategy in this population.


Assuntos
Dor Aguda , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos , Ketamina , Adulto , Humanos , Dor Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Método Duplo-Cego , Medição da Dor , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência
2.
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes ; 6(6): 597-604, 2022 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36386574

RESUMO

Objective: To improve the care for pediatric oncology patients with neutropenic fever who present to the emergency department (ED) by administering appropriate empiric antibiotics within 60 minutes of arrival. Patients and Methods: We focused on improving the care for pediatric oncology patients at risk of neutropenia who presented to the ED with concern for fever. Our baseline adherence to the administration of empiric antibiotics within 60 minutes for this population was 53% (76/144) from January 1, 2010, to December 21, 2014. During 2015, we reviewed data monthly, finding 73% adherence. We used the Lean methodology to identify the process waste, completed a value-stream map with input from multidisciplinary stakeholders, and convened a root cause analysis to identify causes for delay. The 4 causes were as follows: (1) lack of staff awareness; (2) missing patient information in electronic medical record; (3) practice variation; and 4) lack of clear prioritization of laboratory draws. We initiated Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to achieve our goal of 80% of patients receiving appropriate empiric antibiotics within 60 minutes of arrival in the ED. Results: Five Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were completed, focusing on the following: (1) timely identification of patients by utilizing the electronic medical record to initiate a page to the care team; (2) creation of a streamlined intravascular access process; (3) practice standardization; (4) convenient access to appropriate antibiotics; and (5) care team education. Timely antibiotic administration increased from 73%-95% of patients by 2018. More importantly, the adherence was sustained to greater than 90% through 2021. Conclusion: A structured and multifaceted approach using quality improvement methodologies can achieve and sustain improved patient care outcomes in the ED.

3.
Palliat Med ; 34(9): 1279-1285, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32666881

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Palliative care has been identified as an area of low outpatient referral from our emergency department, yet palliative care has been shown to improve the quality of patient's lives. AIM: This study investigates both provider and patient perspectives on palliative care for the purpose of identifying barriers to increased palliative care utilization within our healthcare system. DESIGN: Two surveys were developed, one for patients/caregivers and one for healthcare providers. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This was a single-center study completed at a quaternary academic emergency department. A survey was sent to emergency medicine providers with 47% response rate. Research staff approached Emergency Department patients who had been identified to be high risk to fill out paper surveys with 76% response rate. RESULTS: Only 28% of patients had already undergone palliative care, with an additional 25% interested in palliative care. Nearly half of the patients felt that they needed more resources to prevent hospital visits. Patients identified low understanding of palliative care and difficulty accessing appointments as barriers to consultation. Among providers, 98% indicated that they had patients who would benefit from palliative care. A majority of providers highlighted patient understanding of palliative care and access to appointments as barriers to palliative care. Notably, 52% of providers reported that emergency medicine provider knowledge was a barrier to palliative care consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite emergency department patients' self-identified need for resources and emergency medicine providers' recognition of patients who would benefit from palliative care, few patients receive palliative care consultation.


Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Pessoal de Saúde , Cuidados Paliativos , Satisfação do Paciente , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Enfermagem de Cuidados Paliativos na Terminalidade da Vida/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Satisfação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...