Department of Pharmacy Practice, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Emerg Med Australas. 2011 Feb;23(1):23-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01348.x. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
To describe the prescribing practice of emergency medicine clinicians in the management of highly agitated patients and to identify perceived barriers to management and the gaps in training.
We undertook an anonymous cross-sectional mail survey of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) members (fellows and advanced trainees) between June and September 2009. A questionnaire including a case vignette of a hypothetical patient and three clinical scenarios was employed to ascertain prescribing practice and assess perceived barriers to management, confidence and the perceived usefulness of existing and future Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs).
All 2052 ACEM members were surveyed. However, seven had incorrect postal addresses and could not be reached. Of the remaining 2045, 786/2052 (38.3%, 95% CI 36.2-40.5) responses were received. Of the 786 respondents, 783 were practicing clinicians. If monotherapy was chosen, 622/783 (79.4%, 95% CI 76.4-82.2) of respondents preferred midazolam to manage the common scenario where no history was available, followed by haloperidol 45/783 (5.8%, 95% CI 4.3-7.7) and olanzapine 38/783 (4.9%, 95% CI 3.5-6.7). Most respondents 500/783 (63.9%, 95% CI 60.4-67.2) would also administer another sedative (combination therapy). Important perceived barriers to agitation management included lack of both training (352/783 [45.0%, 95% CI 41.4-48.5]) and a national CPG (313/783 [40.0%, 95% CI 36.5-43.5]). Respondents were generally confident in all aspects of management, although relatively fewer trainees were confident in determining dosing. Institutional CPGs were considered most useful for 415/783 (53.0%, 95% CI 49.4-56.5) respondents. If an ACEM-endorsed CPG were to be developed in the future, 634/783 (81.0%, 95% CI 78.0-83.6) respondents would consider this useful.
There is considerable variation in the management of hypothetical cases of acute agitation in Australasian EDs. Benzodiazepines and antipsychotics, either alone or in combination, are commonly used. An ACEM-endorsed, Australasian CPG was perceived as useful.
描述急诊医学临床医生在治疗高度激越患者时的处方实践,并确定管理中的感知障碍和培训差距。
我们在 2009 年 6 月至 9 月期间对澳大利亚急诊医师学院(ACEM)的成员(研究员和高级学员)进行了匿名横断面邮件调查。使用包括一个假设患者病例和三个临床场景的问卷,以确定处方实践,并评估管理、信心和现有和未来临床实践指南(CPG)的感知有用性方面的感知障碍。
对所有 2052 名 ACEM 成员进行了调查。然而,有 7 人的地址有误,无法联系到。在剩下的 2045 人中,有 786/2052(38.3%,95%CI 36.2-40.5)人回复了问卷。在 786 名应答者中,有 783 名是执业临床医生。如果选择单一疗法,622/783(79.4%,95%CI 76.4-82.2)名应答者更愿意使用咪达唑仑来治疗无病史的常见情况,其次是氟哌啶醇 45/783(5.8%,95%CI 4.3-7.7)和奥氮平 38/783(4.9%,95%CI 3.5-6.7)。大多数应答者 500/783(63.9%,95%CI 60.4-67.2)也会给予另一种镇静剂(联合治疗)。躁动管理的重要感知障碍包括缺乏培训(352/783 [45.0%,95%CI 41.4-48.5])和国家 CPG(313/783 [40.0%,95%CI 36.5-43.5])。应答者在管理的所有方面都普遍有信心,尽管相对较少的学员对确定剂量有信心。机构 CPG 被认为对 415/783(53.0%,95%CI 49.4-56.5)名应答者最有用。如果未来制定一项由 ACEM 认可的 CPG,783/783(81.0%,95%CI 78.0-83.6)名应答者将认为这是有用的。
在澳大利亚急诊中,对急性激越的假设病例的管理存在相当大的差异。苯二氮䓬类药物和抗精神病药物,无论是单独使用还是联合使用,都经常使用。ACEM 认可的、澳大利亚的 CPG 被认为是有用的。