Study objective Adverse drug events represent the most common cause of preventable nonsurgical adverse events in medicine but may remain undetected. Our objective is to determine the proportion of ...drug-related visits emergency physicians attribute to medication-related problems. Methods This prospective observational study enrolled adults presenting to a tertiary care emergency department (ED) during 12 weeks. Drug-related visits were defined as ED visits caused by adverse drug events. The definition of adverse drug event was varied to examine both narrow and broad adverse drug event classification systems. Clinical pharmacists evaluated all patients for drug-related visits, using standardized assessment algorithms, and then followed patients until hospital discharge. Interrater agreement for the clinical pharmacist diagnosis of drug-related visit was assessed. Emergency physicians, blinded to the clinical pharmacist opinion, were interviewed at the end of each shift to determine whether they attributed the visit to a medication-related problem. An independent committee reviewed and adjudicated all cases in which the emergency physicians' and clinical pharmacists' assessments were discordant, or either the emergency physician or clinical pharmacist was uncertain. The primary outcome was the proportion of drug-related visits attributed to a medication-related problem by emergency physicians. Results Nine hundred forty-four patients were enrolled, of whom 44 patients received a diagnosis of the narrowest definition of an adverse drug event, an adverse drug reaction (4.7%; 95% confidence interval CI 3.5% to 6.2%). Twenty-seven of these were categorized as medication-related by emergency physicians (61.4%; 95% CI 46.5% to 74.3%), 10 were categorized as uncertain (22.7%; 95% CI 12.9% to 37.1%), and 7 categorized as a non-medication-related problem (15.9%; 95% CI 8.0% to 29.5%). Seventy-eight patients (8.3%; 95% CI 6.7% to 10.2%) received a diagnosis of an adverse drug event caused by an adverse drug reaction, a drug interaction, drug withdrawal, a medication error, or noncompliance. Emergency physicians attributed 49 of these to a medication-related problem (62.8%; 95% CI 51.7% to 72.7%), were uncertain about 15 (19.2%; 95% CI 12.0% to 29.4%), and attributed 14 to non-medication-related problems (17.9%; 95% CI 11.0% to 27.9%). Twenty-five of 29 (86.2%; 95% CI 69.3% to 94.4%) adverse drug events not considered medication related by emergency physicians were rated at least moderate in severity. Conclusion A significant proportion of drug-related visits are not deemed medication related by emergency physicians. Drug-related visits not attributed to medication-related problems by emergency physicians may be missed in ongoing outpatient adverse drug event surveillance programs intended to develop strategies to enhance drug safety. Further research is needed to determine what the effect may be of not attributing adverse drug events to medication-related problems.
Medication-related visits to the emergency department are an important but poorly understood phenomenon. We sought to evaluate the frequency, severity and preventability of drug-related visits to the ...emergency department.
We performed a prospective observational study of randomly selected adults presenting to the emergency department over a 12-week period. Emergency department visits were identified as drug-related on the basis of assessment by a pharmacist research assistant and an emergency physician; discrepancies were adjudicated by 2 independent reviewers.
Among the 1017 patients included in the study, the emergency department visit was identified as drug-related for 122 patients (12.0%, 95% confidence interval CI 10.1%-14.2%); of these, 83 visits (68.0%, 95% CI 59.0%-76.2%) were deemed preventable. Severity was classified as mild in 15.6% of the 122 cases, moderate in 74.6% and severe in 9.8%. The most common reasons for drug-related visits were adverse drug reactions (39.3%), nonadherence (27.9%) and use of the wrong or suboptimal drug (11.5%). The probability of admission was significantly higher among patients who had a drug-related visit than among those whose visit was not drug-related (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.46-3.27, p < 0.001), and among those admitted, the median length of stay was longer (8.0 interquartile range 23.5 v. 5.5 interquartile range 10.0 days, p = 0.06).
More than 1 in 9 emergency department visits are due to drug-related adverse events, a potentially preventable problem in our health care system.
Study objective Our objectives are to describe the outcomes of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) because of an adverse drug event and to compare them with outcomes of patients ...presenting for other reasons. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at Vancouver General Hospital, a 955-bed tertiary care hospital. We prospectively enrolled adults presenting to the ED between March and June 2006, using a systematic sampling algorithm. Pharmacists and physicians independently evaluated patients for adverse drug events. An independent committee reviewed and adjudicated cases in which assessments were discordant or uncertain. Data from the index visit were linked to vital statistics, administrative health services utilization, and cost of care data. Results Of 1,000 patients, 122 (12.2%; 95% confidence interval CI 10.3% to 14.4%) presented to the ED because of an adverse drug event. Of these, 48 presented because of an adverse drug reaction (one type of adverse drug event defined as an unintended response that occurred despite use of an appropriate drug dosage). We found no difference in mortality among patients presenting with and without adverse drug reactions (14.6% versus 5.9%; hazard ratio 1.57; 95% CI 0.70 to 3.52). After adjustment, patients with adverse drug events had a higher risk of spending additional days in the hospital per month (6.3% versus 3.4%; odds ratio 1.52; 95% CI 1.43 to 1.62) and higher rate of outpatient health care encounters (1.73 versus 1.22; rate ratio 1.20; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40). The adjusted median monthly cost of care was 1.90 times higher (Can $325 versus $96; 95% CI 1.18 to 3.08). Conclusion ED patients presenting with an adverse drug event incurred greater health services utilization and costs during a 6-month follow-up period compared with patients presenting for other reasons.
Study objective We determine whether a 1:1 mixture of ketamine and propofol (ketofol) for emergency department (ED) procedural sedation results in a 13% or more absolute reduction in adverse ...respiratory events compared with propofol alone. Methods Participants were randomized to receive either ketofol or propofol in a double-blind fashion. Inclusion criteria were aged 14 years or older and American Society of Anesthesiology class 1 to 3 status. The primary outcome was the number and proportion of patients experiencing an adverse respiratory event as defined by the Quebec Criteria. Secondary outcomes were sedation consistency, efficacy, and time; induction time; and adverse events. Results A total of 284 patients were enrolled, 142 per group. Forty-three (30%) patients experienced an adverse respiratory event in the ketofol group compared with 46 (32%) in the propofol group (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval −9% to 13%; P =.80). Three ketofol patients and 1 propofol patient received bag-valve-mask ventilation. Sixty-five (46%) patients receiving ketofol and 93 (65%) patients receiving propofol required repeated medication dosing or progressed to a Ramsay Sedation Score of 4 or less during their procedure (difference 19%; 95% confidence interval 8% to 31%; P =.001). Six patients receiving ketofol were treated for recovery agitation. Other secondary outcomes were similar between the groups. Patients and staff were highly satisfied with both agents. Conclusion Ketofol for ED procedural sedation does not result in a reduced incidence of adverse respiratory events compared with propofol alone. Induction time, efficacy, and sedation time were similar; however, sedation depth appeared to be more consistent with ketofol.
Abstract Background Observation units (OUs) have been shown to reduce emergency department (ED) lengths of stay (LOS) and admissions. Most published studies have been on OUs managing single ...complaints. Objective Our aim was to determine whether an OU reduces ED LOS and hospital admission rates for adults with a variety of presenting complaints. Methods We comparatively evaluated two hospitals in British Columbia, Canada (hereafter ED A and ED B) using a pre–post design. Data were extracted from administrative databases. The post-OU cohort included all adults presenting 6 months after OU implementation. The pre-OU cohort included all adults presenting in the same 6-month period 1 year before OU implementation. Results There were 109,625 patient visits during the study period. Of the 56,832 visits during the post-OU period (27,512 to ED A and 29,318 to ED B), 1.9% were managed in the OU in ED A and 1.4% in ED B. Implementation was associated with an increase in the median ED LOS at ED A (179.0 min pre vs. 192.0 min post +13.0 min; p < 0.001; mean difference −12.5 min, 95% confidence interval CI −15.2 to −9.9 min), but no change at ED B (182.0 min pre vs. 182.0 min post; p = 0.55; mean difference +2.0 min, 95% CI −0.7 to +4.7 min). Implementation significantly decreased the hospital admission rate for ED A (17.8% pre to 17.0% post −0.8%, 95% CI −0.18% to 0.15%; p < 0.05) and did not significantly change the hospital admission rate at ED B (18.9% pre to 18.3% post −0.6%, 95% CI −1.19% to −0.09%; p = 0.09). Conclusions A multi-diagnosis OU can reduce hospital admission rate in a site-specific manner. In contrast to previous studies, we did not find that an OU reduced ED LOS. Further research is needed to determine whether OUs can reduce ED overcrowding.
The British Columbia Emergency Medicine Network (EM Network) has collaborated with patient partners to utilize their experiential knowledge to inform planning and implementation. Patient partners ...participated in several EM Network committees and initiatives. This study evaluated how patient partners and other leaders in the EM Network perceived patient engagement efforts 1 year after launch. The Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool V2.0 found that there was an appropriate level of patient engagement at this early stage, an opportunity to attract more patient partners as the EM Network grows, and a need to ensure adequate resources to support more activities.
BACKGROUND Acute asthma is a common ED presentation. In a prospective, multicenter cohort study, we determined the frequency and factors associated with asthma relapse following discharge from the ...ED. METHODS Adults aged 18 to 55 years who were treated for acute asthma and discharged from 20 Canadian EDs underwent a structured ED interview and a follow-up telephone interview 4 weeks later. Standardized antiinflammatory treatment was offered at discharge. Multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS Of 807 enrolled patients, 58% were women, and the median age was 30 years. Relapse occurred in 144 patients (18%) within 4 weeks of ED discharge. Factors independently associated with relapse occurrence were female sex (women, 22% vs men, 12%; adjusted OR aOR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0); symptom duration of ≥ 24 h prior to ED visit (long duration, 19% vs short duration, 13%; aOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3); ever using oral corticosteroids (ever use, 21% vs never use, 12%; aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0); current use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS/long-acting β-agonist combination product (combination product, 25% vs ICS monotherapy,15%; aOR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.2); and owning a spacer device (owning one, 24% vs not owning one, 15%; aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-1.9). CONCLUSIONS Despite receiving guideline-concordant antiinflammatory treatments at ED discharge, almost one in five patients relapsed within 4 weeks. Female sex, prolonged symptoms, treatment-related factors, and markers of prior asthma severity were significantly associated with relapse. These results may help physicians target more aggressive interventions for patients at high risk of relapse.
PDF
