4.3 Article

Use of a 23-hour emergency department observation unit for the management of patients with toxic exposures

期刊

EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 755-+

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2016-206531

关键词

-

资金

  1. Changi General Hospital Health Fund (Singapore)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background A significant proportion of patients with toxic exposures presenting to the ED require admission. However, most will improve within 24 hours, and so could potentially be managed In a short-stay observation unit. We describe the management and outcomes of these patients In a 23-hour ED observation unit (EDOU). Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients with toxic exposures admitted to the EDOU In Singapore between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, exposure patterns, clinical presentation and interventions received were abstracted. The poisoning severity score (PSS) was retrospectively determined. Outcomes were length of stay and disposition. Results A total of 286 patients were analysed, of which 78.0% had intentional self-poisoning, 12.2% had bites/ stings and 9.8% had unintentional or occupational toxic exposures. Analgesics (29.4%), sedatives (12.3%) and antidepressants (6.8%) were the most common drugs encountered. The majority of patients had a mild (68.9%) or moderate (15.4%) PSS, but 4.2% were graded as severe. Most patients with deliberate self-poisoning were reviewed by psychiatry (88.8%) and social services (74.9%). Most patients (92.0%) were medically cleared during their stay In EDOU, Including all 12 with a severe PSS. Of these, 200 (69.9%) were discharged and 63 (22.0%) were transferred directly to a psychiatric unit. The median length of stay In the EDOU was 18 hours (IQR 13-23). Conclusion Most patients admitted to the EDOU were successfully managed and medically cleared within 23 hours, Including those with a severe PSS. The EDOU appears to be a suitable alternative to Inpatient admission for selected patients.

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

4.3
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