RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize current state-sponsored opioid guidelines for the practice of emergency medicine (EM). METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of EM-specific opioid prescribing guidelines and/or policies in each state to determine current state involvement in EM opioid prescribing, as well as to evaluate some of the specifics of each guideline or policy. The search was conducted using an online query and a follow-up email request to each state chapter of ACEP. RESULTS: We found that 17 states had emergency department-specific guidelines. We further organized the guidelines into four categories: limiting prescriptions for opioids with 67 total recommendations; preventing/diverting abuse with 56 total recommendations; addiction-related guidelines with 29 total recommendations; and a community resources section with 24 total recommendations. Our results showed that current state guidelines focus on providers limiting opioid pain prescriptions and vetting patients for possible abuse/diversion. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the 17 states that have addressed opioid prescribing guidelines and categorizes their efforts to date. It is hoped that this study will provide the basis for similar efforts in other states.
Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides , Prescrições de Medicamentos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Uso Indevido de Medicamentos sob Prescrição/estatística & dados numéricos , Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Protocolos Clínicos , Prescrições de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Uso Indevido de Medicamentos sob Prescrição/prevenção & controle , Estados UnidosAssuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Avaliação de Processos em Cuidados de Saúde/normas , Gestão da Segurança/organização & administração , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/normas , Humanos , Modelos Organizacionais , Avaliação de Processos em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Gestão da Segurança/métodos , Estados Unidos , Organização Mundial da SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Time-outs, as one of the elements of the Joint Commission Universal Protocol for Preventing Wrong Site, Wrong Procedure, and Wrong Person Surgery has been in effect since July 1, 2004. Time-outs are required by The Joint Commission for all hospital procedures regardless of location, including emergency departments (EDs). Attitudes about ED time-outs were assessed for a sample of senior emergency physicians serving in leadership roles for a national professional society. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was administered to members of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Council at the October 2009 ACEP Council meeting on the use of time-outs in the ED. A total of 225 (72%) of the 331 councilors present filled out the survey. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (13%) of respondents were unaware of a formal time-out policy in their ED, 79 (35%) reported that ED time-outs were warranted, and 5 (2%) reported they knew of an instance where a time-out may have prevented an error. Chest tubes (167 respondents [74%]) and the use of sedation (142 respondents [63%]) were most commonly identified as ED procedures that necessitated a time-out. Episodes of any wrong-site error in their EDs were reported by 16 (7%) of the respondents. Wrong patient (9 respondents [4%]) and wrong procedure (2 respondents [1%]) errors were less common. CONCLUSIONS: Although the time-out requirement has been in effect since 2004, more than 1 in 10 of ED physicians in this sample ofED physician leaders were unaware of it. According to the respondents, medical errors preventable by time-outs were rare; however, time-outs may be useful for certain procedures, particularly when there is a risk of wrong-site, wrong-patient, or wrong-procedure medical errors.
Assuntos
Medicina de Emergência/normas , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/normas , Erros Médicos/prevenção & controle , Gestão da Segurança/normas , Protocolos Clínicos/normas , Medicina de Emergência/métodos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Gestão da Segurança/métodosRESUMO
Patient handoffs at shift change are a ubiquitous and potentially hazardous process in emergency care. As crowding and lengthy evaluations become the standard for an increasing proportion of emergency departments (EDs), the number of patients handed off will likely increase. It is critical now more than ever before to ensure that handoffs supply valid and useful shared understandings between providers at transitions of care. The purpose of this article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and collective thinking about the process and safety of handoffs between physicians in the ED. It offers perspectives from other disciplines, provides a conceptual framework for handoffs, and categorizes models of existing practices. Legal and risk management issues are also addressed. A proposal for the development of handoff quality measures is outlined. Practical strategies are suggested to improve ED handoffs. Finally, a research agenda is proposed to provide a roadmap to future work that may increase knowledge in this area.