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.
Ann Emerg Med ; 71(3): 314-325.e1, 2018 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28669553

RESUMO

We provide recommendations for stocking of antidotes used in emergency departments (EDs). An expert panel representing diverse perspectives (clinical pharmacology, medical toxicology, critical care medicine, hematology/oncology, hospital pharmacy, emergency medicine, emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, poison centers, hospital administration, and public health) was formed to create recommendations for antidote stocking. Using a standardized summary of the medical literature, the primary reviewer for each antidote proposed guidelines for antidote stocking to the full panel. The panel used a formal iterative process to reach their recommendation for both the quantity of antidote that should be stocked and the acceptable timeframe for its delivery. The panel recommended consideration of 45 antidotes; 44 were recommended for stocking, of which 23 should be immediately available. In most hospitals, this timeframe requires that the antidote be stocked in a location that allows immediate availability. Another 14 antidotes were recommended for availability within 1 hour of the decision to administer, allowing the antidote to be stocked in the hospital pharmacy if the hospital has a mechanism for prompt delivery of antidotes. The panel recommended that each hospital perform a formal antidote hazard vulnerability assessment to determine its specific need for antidote stocking. Antidote administration is an important part of emergency care. These expert recommendations provide a tool for hospitals that offer emergency care to provide appropriate care of poisoned patients.


Assuntos
Antídotos/provisão & distribuição , Consenso , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/organização & administração , Guias como Assunto , Hospitais/normas , Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar/normas , Intoxicação/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários
2.
Pain Ther ; 6(2): 193-202, 2017 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29127600

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the most common symptom prompting an emergency department visit and emergency physicians are responsible for managing both acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain resulting from a broad range of illnesses and injuries. The responsibility to treat must be balanced by the duty to limit harm resulting from analgesics. In recent years, opioid-related adverse effects, including overdose and deaths, have increased dramatically in the USA. In response to the US opioid crisis, emergency physicians have broadened their analgesic armamentarium to include a variety of non-opioid approaches. For some of these therapies, sparse evidence exists to support their efficacy for emergency department use. The purpose of this paper is to review historical trends and emerging approaches to emergency department analgesia, with a particular focus on the USA and Canada. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative review of past and current descriptive studies of emergency department pain practice, as well as clinical trials of emerging pain treatment modalities. The review considers the increasing use of non-opioid and multimodal analgesic therapies, including migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, subdissociative-dose ketamine, nitrous oxide, intravenous lidocaine and gabapentinoids, as well as broad programmatic initiatives promoting the use of non-opioid analgesics and nonpharmacologic interventions. RESULTS: While migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, nitrous oxide and subdissociative-dose ketamine are supported by a relatively robust evidence base, data supporting the emergency department use of intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids and various non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions remain sparse. CONCLUSION: Additional research on the relative safety and efficacy of non-opioid approaches to emergency department analgesia is needed. Despite a limited research base, it is likely that non-opioid analgesic modalities will be employed with increasing frequency. A new generation of emergency physicians is seeking additional training in pain medicine and increasing dialogue between emergency medicine and pain medicine researchers, educators and clinicians could contribute to better management of emergency department pain.

3.
Acad Emerg Med ; 23(3): 331-41, 2016 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26782787

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Patient compliance and satisfaction with analgesics prescribed after emergency department (ED) care for acute pain are poorly understood, largely because of the lack of direct patient follow-up with the ED provider. Our objective was to compare patient satisfaction with three analgesia regimens prescribed for post-ED care-a nasally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an opioid, or combination therapy-by collecting granular follow-up on analgesic use, pain scores, side effects, work activity levels, and overall satisfaction directly from patients. METHODS: We designed a prospective registry linking ED assessment and analgesic management for acute pain of specific musculoskeletal or visceral etiologies with self-reported automated telephonic follow-up daily for the 4 days post-ED discharge. Patients were prescribed a specific NSAID (SPRIX, ketorolac tromethamine for nasal instillation) only, an oral opioid only, or both with the opioid clearly defined as rescue therapy, at the ED provider's discretion. RESULTS: There were 824 evaluable subjects. Maximum pain scores improved day to day more effectively with a ketorolac-based approach. Self-reported rates of return to work and work effectiveness were higher with SPRIX than with opioids or combination therapy. Adverse effects of nausea, constipation, drowsiness, and abdominal pain were higher each day among patients taking an opioid; nasal irritation was more common with SPRIX. Overall satisfaction at the end of the follow-up period was higher with SPRIX-based treatment than with opioid monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Automated telephonic follow-up of ED patients prescribed short-term analgesia is feasible. Ketorolac-based analgesia after an ED visit for many acute pain syndromes was associated with favorable patient outcomes and higher satisfaction than opioid-based therapy. SPRIX, an NSAID that is not available over the counter and has a novel delivery approach, may be useful for short-term post-ED outpatient analgesia.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Satisfação do Paciente , Administração Intranasal , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/administração & dosagem , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Quimioterapia Combinada , Uso de Medicamentos , Feminino , Humanos , Cetorolaco de Trometamina , Masculino , Adesão à Medicação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor , Medição da Dor , Avaliação de Resultados da Assistência ao Paciente , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA