4.2 Article

Prevalence of psychoactive drugs in injured patients presenting to an emergency department

期刊

EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 25-33

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.14040

关键词

bias; injury; prevalence; psychoactive drug

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to understand the prevalence of psychoactive drugs in trauma patients presenting to an ED, with 57.2% of patients tested positive for one or more psychoactive drugs. Common drugs detected included cannabis, antidepressants, alcohol. The prevalence varied by age group, sex, and cause of injury.
ObjectiveResults The aim of the present study was to obtain an unbiased understanding of the prevalence of psychoactive drugs in trauma patients presenting to a large ED. Methods Consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED with an injury resulting in a trauma call had an anonymised, additional blood test taken for detection of over 2000 drugs. Laboratory testing was to judicial standards. Drugs given by ambulance pre-hospital were detected but excluded from the analysis. Over 6 months 276 (74.7%) of 371 patients were tested. Of the 276 patients tested, 158 (57.2%) had one or more psychoactive drug present. Recreational drugs were detected in 101 (36.6%) patients and medicinal drugs in 88 (31.8%) patients, with a combination of both detected in 31 (11.2%) patients. The most common drugs detected were cannabis (22.1%), antidepressants (18.4%), alcohol (15.5%), opioids (10.1%), benzodiazepine/z-drugs (9.4%) and methamphetamine (7.2%). The prevalence of psychoactive drugs differed by age group, sex and cause of injury. Conclusions The prevalence of psychoactive drugs in injury presentations to an ED is high, and provides an opportunity to reduce harm. The present study demonstrates the feasibility of an approach which limits bias and obtains results that accurately reflect the drug prevalence in injured cohorts. Systematic testing of injured patients is an important contribution to the epidemiology of injury.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据