Mathew Anupha M, Robert Sophie, Ross Clint, Weeda Erin, Pruitt Adrienne
Clinical Pharmacy Resident, Medical University of South Carolina Health, Charleston, South Carolina,
Clinical Pharmacy Specialist - Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina Health, Charleston, South Carolina; Research Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Adjunct Assistant Professor, Medical University of South Carolina, College of Pharmacy, Charleston, South Carolina.
Ment Health Clin. 2021 Mar 31;11(2):50-54. doi: 10.9740/mhc.2021.03.050. eCollection 2021 Mar.
This study aimed to compare the rates of agitation-related interventions associated with initial holding versus continuation of home stimulant(s) in a child and adolescent population at the time of admission to an inpatient psychiatric facility.
This retrospective chart review included patients less than 18 years of age who were admitted to an academic medical center between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those continued on their home stimulant(s) and those who had them held. We compared both groups on agitation-related outcomes by examining the difference in the number of level I or II events or as-needed medication administrations. Mechanical restraints and closed-door seclusions were grouped as level I events, and level II events consisted of nonmechanical restraint.
The analysis included 169 patients. In total, 126 (75%) patients were continued on their home stimulant, and 43 (25%) had them held. The occurrence of the composite endpoint of level I or II events or as-needed intramuscular medication administration was numerically higher in the group that had their home stimulant held (27.9% vs 23%; = .52). Level I events were also numerically higher but not statistically significant in the group that had their home stimulant held (16.3% vs 11.9%; = .46).
The composite outcome of as-needed intramuscular medication administration and level I or II events was numerically higher in the group that had their home stimulant held. Use of a larger sample size and adjusted analyses may help elucidate covariates that impact agitation-related outcomes.
本研究旨在比较儿童和青少年人群入住住院精神科机构时,与继续使用家庭兴奋剂与停用家庭兴奋剂相关的激越相关干预率。
这项回顾性病历审查纳入了2017年7月1日至2018年7月1日期间入住一所学术医疗中心的18岁以下患者。患者分为两组:继续使用家庭兴奋剂的患者和停用家庭兴奋剂的患者。我们通过检查I级或II级事件数量或按需用药管理方面的差异,比较了两组在激越相关结局方面的情况。机械约束和闭门隔离被归为I级事件,II级事件包括非机械约束。
分析纳入了169例患者。总共有126例(75%)患者继续使用家庭兴奋剂,43例(25%)患者停用。在停用家庭兴奋剂的组中,I级或II级事件或按需肌内注射药物复合终点的发生率在数值上更高(27.9%对23%;P = 0.52)。在停用家庭兴奋剂的组中,I级事件在数值上也更高,但无统计学意义(16.3%对11.9%;P = 0.46)。
在停用家庭兴奋剂的组中,按需肌内注射药物以及I级或II级事件的复合结局在数值上更高。使用更大的样本量和调整分析可能有助于阐明影响激越相关结局的协变量。