Improving Emergency Medicine Clinician Awareness of Prehospital-Administered Medications.

Background/problem: Information transfer between emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency medicine (EM) is at high risk for omissions and errors. EM awareness of prehospital medication administration affects patient management and medication error. In April 2020, we surveyed emergency physicians and emergency department nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) regarding the EMS handoff process. Emergency physicians and NPs/PAs endorsed knowing what medications were given, or having received direct verbal handoff from EMS "Often" or "Always" only 20% of the time (n = 71), identifying a need to improve the written handoff process. To assess rates of medication error due to lack of awareness of prehospital administered medications, we measured glucocorticoid redosing in the emergency department (ED) following prehospital dexamethasone administration. In 2020, glucocorticoids were redosed 30% of the time, and our aim was to reduce glucocorticoid redosing to 10% by June 2022. Intervention: We developed and implemented a system innovation where prehospital-administered medications documented in a nursing flowsheet during verbal handoff are pulled directly into the triage note where they are more likely to be reviewed by receiving EM clinicians. Results: Shewhart p-charts were used to evaluate for statistical process change in the process measure of triage note documentation of prehospital medication administration and the outcome measure of glucocorticoid redosing. While the frequency of prehospital dexamethasone administration in the triage note increased, no statistical process change outcome measure of glucocorticoid redosing was observed. However, on repeat survey of EM clinicians in July 2022, 50% now indicated they were aware of prehospital medication administration "Often" or "Always" (n = 61, p = 0.003), 87% maintained they use the triage note as the main source of information regarding prehospital medication administration, and 81% "Always" review the triage note. Conclusions: Innovations that improve accessibility of written documentation of prehospital medication administration were associated with improved subjective assessment of EM clinician awareness of prehospital medications, but not the outcome measure of medication error. Effective error reduction likely requires better system integration between prehospital and EM records.

Surgical removal of extended-release buprenorphine depot due to adverse reactions.

Extended-release formulations of buprenorphine offer less frequent dosing, provide consistent medication delivery, and improve adherence for treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Although buprenorphine is a partial agonist with seemingly less precipitated withdrawal and easier initiation than full opioid agonists used for OUD, its use is not benign and understanding of the different extended-release formulations is necessary. We report a case of a patient that received a long-acting buprenorphine formulation (Sublocade®) administered subcutaneously that presented to the emergency department with tachycardia, hyperglycemia, elevated anion gap, and sustained nausea and vomiting refractory to pharmacotherapy requiring surgical removal of the buprenorphine depot for resolution of nausea and vomiting symptoms.

Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The preferred vasopressor in post-cardiac arrest shock has not been established with robust clinical outcomes data. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, refractory shock, and hemodynamic parameters in post-cardiac arrest patients who received either norepinephrine or epinephrine as primary vasopressor support. METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 2000 to 2022. Included studies were prospective, retrospective, or published abstracts comparing norepinephrine and epinephrine in adults with post-cardiac arrest shock or with cardiogenic shock and extractable post-cardiac arrest data. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes included incidence of arrhythmias or refractory shock. RESULTS: The database search returned 2646 studies. Two studies involving 853 participants were included in the systematic review. The proposed meta-analysis was deferred due to low yield. Crude incidence of in-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the epinephrine group compared with norepinephrine in both studies, but only statistically significant in one. Risk of bias was moderate to severe for in-hospital mortality. Additional outcomes were reported differently between studies, minimizing direct comparison. CONCLUSION: The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rapid Sequence Intubation in the Critically Ill Adult Patient.

RATIONALE: Controversies and practice variations exist related to the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of the airway during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations on pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topics related to RSI. DESIGN: A guideline panel of 20 Society of Critical Care Medicine members with experience with RSI and emergency airway management met virtually at least monthly from the panel's inception in 2018 through 2020 and face-to-face at the 2020 Critical Care Congress. The guideline panel included pharmacists, physicians, a nurse practitioner, and a respiratory therapist with experience in emergency medicine, critical care medicine, anesthesiology, and prehospital medicine; consultation with a methodologist and librarian was available. A formal conflict of interest policy was followed and enforced throughout the guidelines-development process. METHODS: Panelists created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions and voted to select the most clinically relevant questions for inclusion in the guideline. Each question was assigned to a pair of panelists, who refined the PICO wording and reviewed the best available evidence using predetermined search terms. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used throughout and recommendations of "strong" or "conditional" were made for each PICO question based on quality of evidence and panel consensus. Recommendations were provided when evidence was actionable; suggestions, when evidence was equivocal; and best practice statements, when the benefits of the intervention outweighed the risks, but direct evidence to support the intervention did not exist. RESULTS: From the original 35 proposed PICO questions, 10 were selected. The RSI guideline panel issued one recommendation (strong, low-quality evidence), seven suggestions (all conditional recommendations with moderate-, low-, or very low-quality evidence), and two best practice statements. The panel made two suggestions for a single PICO question and did not make any suggestions for one PICO question due to lack of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using GRADE principles, the interdisciplinary panel found substantial agreement with respect to the evidence supporting recommendations for RSI. The panel also identified literature gaps that might be addressed by future research.

Real-world Impact of 3 and 4.5 mg Doses of Dulaglutide on Weight and Hemoglobin A1c in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Limited real-world data on the benefits and risks associated with 3 and 4.5 mg doses of dulaglutide currently exists, making it difficult to determine the impact of dose titration for patients currently managed with dulaglutide 1.5 mg weekly. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of dulaglutide 3 and 4.5 mg doses on weight and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), in clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of adult T2DM patients receiving dulaglutide 3 or 4.5 mg weekly within a large, university-affiliated, primary care network. The primary outcome was change in weight and HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included incremental changes in weight and HbA1c, and describing trends related to dose reductions. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included, 62 in the dulaglutide 3 mg group and 33 in the dulaglutide 4.5 mg group. After 24 weeks, the mean changes in weight and HbA1c from baseline were -1.8 kg (P < 0.01) and -0.4% (P < 0.01) in the 3 mg group, and -4.2 kg (P < 0.01) and -0.4% (P = 0.119) in the 4.5 mg group. Incremental change in weight and HbA1c among patients who were titrated from dulaglutide 3 to 4.5 mg weekly were -2.6 kg (P < 0.01) and -0.2% (P = 0.04), respectively. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Titration from dulaglutide 1.5 to 3 mg resulted in significant reductions in weight and HbA1c after 24 weeks. Additional, statistically significant, reductions in weight and HbA1c were seen when patients were further titrated to dulaglutide 4.5 mg weekly.

Use of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for management of bleeding not associated with therapeutic anticoagulant use.

INTRODUCTION: Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) may be an option for patients with bleeding unrelated to therapeutic anticoagulation to help with bleeding cessation and reduce blood component requirements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of adult patients who received 4F-PCC for bleeding not associated with therapeutic anticoagulation between June 2019 and July 2021. Primary outcome was to describe off-label 4F-PCC use in patients not on therapeutic anticoagulation for bleeding management in surgical and non-surgical patients. Additional outcomes evaluated were blood product use, chest tube and drainage output, and coagulation studies before and after 4F-PCC administration as well as other hemostatic agent use and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included; median age 64 years (IQR 50-69), 66% of bleeding events were associated with surgery, and the majority of 4F-PCC doses ordered by cardiac surgery (68.4%). A total of 110 4F-PCC doses were administered; median 1 dose/patient (IQR 1-2), median total dose 1000 units (IQR 500-1484). Other hemostatic agents commonly administered were protamine (59%), desmopressin (43%), and tranexamic acid (42%). Packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, platelet, and cell saver blood administration and prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), and partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) were significantly reduced following 4F-PCC administration. Eight patients (11%) experienced thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSION: Relatively low doses of 4F-PCC (median total dose 1000 units) were associated with decreased blood component requirements and improved PT, INR, and aPTT values in patients with bleeding unrelated to therapeutic anticoagulation. Other hemostatic agent use was common and thromboembolic complications occurred.

Epinephrine autoinjector prescribing following anaphylaxis presentation to the emergency department.

Background: Guidelines recommend patients with anaphylaxis are prescribed epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI), carry the EAI with them, and are referred to an allergist. There also are barriers to EAI administration, such as acquiring the medication, having it available, recognizing when to use it, and administering it appropriately. Objective: The objective was to describe how often patients with anaphylaxis discharged from the emergency department (ED) receive an EAI prescription and allergist referral; also, to assess the frequency of EAI pick-up by the patient from the outpatient pharmacy, out-of-pocket cost, change in EAI device during dispensing, and if patient training on EAI use and allergist follow-up occurred. Patient-specific factors associated with the occurrence of these variables were investigated. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study of adult and pediatric ED patients who presented with anaphylaxis between July and December 2020. Data were collected from medical records and telephone calls to outpatient pharmacies and included patient demographics; ED treatment; EAI prescribing, EAI pick-up from the outpatient pharmacy, and cost; device changes; EAI training; and allergist referral and follow-up. Data are presented descriptively, and bivariate analyses were used for comparisons between patient-specific factors and incidence of EAI prescribing, patient pick-up, and allergist referral. Results: A total of 102 patients were included; mean age ± standard deviation 34 ± 7 years, 52% were < 18 years of age; and 54% had a history of allergy and/or anaphylaxis. EAI prescribing occurred in 79% of the patients. Of these, 71% picked up the EAI from the outpatient pharmacy, the median cost to the patient was $5 (range, $0-$379), 18% had an EAI device change at dispensing, and 23% received EAI training. Allergist referral occurred in 22%, and 28% followed up with an allergist within 60 days. Presenting symptoms of mucosal edema and respiratory stridor were associated with the occurrence of EAI prescribing. Presenting symptoms of respiratory wheezing, hoarseness, throat itching, skin flushing and allergist referral from the ED were associated with the occurrence of EAI pick-up from the outpatient pharmacy. Conclusion: Overall, 79% of ED patients with anaphylaxis had an EAI prescribed and 22% had an allergist referral; 71% picked up the EAI from the outpatient pharmacy, EAI dispensing changes occurred, and training was infrequent. Collaboration between emergency medicine clinicians, allergists, and pharmacists is needed to streamline treatment and follow-up.

Assessment of rabies immune globulin dose rounding at a university health system.

PURPOSE: Describe a dose rounding strategy for rabies immune globulin (RIG) administration. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective, observational review of patients that received RIG following an exposure from an animal with potential to transmit rabies infection in one health-system from March 2011 through December 2021. The primary outcome was to describe the RIG dose rounding strategy and population of patients that received RIG rounded to the nearest vial size compared to those that did not. Secondary outcomes evaluated additional costs and RIG international units (IU) wasted that could have occurred (rounded group) or did occur (not rounded group), re-presentation to the ED or primary care provider (PCP) within 7 days due to RIG related complaint, and occurrence of rabies infection. Data collection included patient demographics, exposure information, and RIG dose administered. Descriptive data and univariate analyses are reported. Cost and RIG IU wasted were calculated for the dosing strategies. RESULTS: 426 patients were included; 373 (88%) had RIG rounded to the nearest vial size and 53 (12%) did not (mean age 36.1 years ±20.5, 51.6% male, most common exposures were bats [50%], type was bite [58%], and category III exposures [92%]). Those that had RIG rounded were younger and had lower total RIG doses, but similar IU/kg doses to those not rounded. A cost savings of $144,815 and prevention of 40,572 RIG IU wasted was calculated from those patients that had RIG rounded. There was no difference in the rate of re-presentation within 7 days and no cases of human rabies infection in the region during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: RIG dose rounding to the nearest vial size is associated with cost savings and prevention of wasting RIG IU. There was no association with re-presentation to the ED or PCP with RIG related issues within 7 days from administration.

P041 Successful Reduction in Opioid Prescription for IBD Flare in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study and Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use is associated with increased mortality, emergency department (ED) utilization, 30-day readmission rates and decreased quality-of-life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Opioid use in the ED for acute IBD presentations has not been well characterized in the literature. Safe, evidence-based, and effective pain management guidance for IBD flares is needed to promote opioid stewardship in the ED. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who presented to an academic tertiary center ED with IBD flares from June 2019 through December 2019. Demographic and disease specific information and ED course, including analgesic use and numeric rating pain scores at ED presentation and discharge, were collected from the medical record. We designed and implemented a multimodal quality improvement intervention consisting of an evidenced-based IBD pain guideline, customized electronic health record order-set, Gastroenterology (GI) consult note smart-phrase and clinician education to promote opioid stewardship. The impact of our intervention was measured with a repeat retrospective analysis from December 2020 through April 2021. Run charts were generated to correlate the timing of interventions to changes in opioid exposure and prescription. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were included in the pre-intervention cohort. A total of 78% of patients who presented to the ED with IBD flare were prescribed opioid(s) with an average of 29.3 morphine milligram equivalence (MME) per ED stay. Approximately half (49%) of patients did not receive any non-opioid analgesic and 13% patients received an opioid prescription at ED or hospital discharge. In the post-intervention cohort consisting of 49 patients, there was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients receiving opioids (45% vs. 78%; p < 0.001) and a significant reduction in the average total opioid administration (10.8 vs. 22.6 MME; p < 0.001). For each month during the post-intervention period, the proportion of patients who received an opioid in the ED and the average total opioid administered remained less than the median of the entire study period, which represents a nonrandom pattern. The use of a non-opioid analgesic, IV acetaminophen, was significantly increased (27% vs 3%; p < 0.001) and the risk of new or recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding was negligible in both cohorts (0% vs. 1%; p = 1.0). There was no significant difference between the average pain score (4.9 vs. 5.4 [10-point-scale]; p=0.440) and the difference between reported triage and final ED pain scores (-1.8 vs. -2.0; p=0.729). Furthermore, there was a significant reduction in GI consultation (35% vs. 58%; p <0.016) and a non-significant reduction in hospital admission (63% vs. 80%; p=0.058). CONCLUSION: Almost 80% of patients who present to ED with IBD flare are prescribed opioids, while only half of patients receive non-opioid analgesics. Also concerning was the high rate of opioid prescription at ED or hospital discharge. A multimodal intervention successfully reduced the proportion and amount of opioid prescribing in the ED without compromising pain control or increasing the risk of GI bleeding. This was also associated with a significant increase in a non-opioid analgesic administration and a significant decrease in GI service consultation. These findings support the role of implementing an evidence-based IBD pain management guideline with electronic prescribing support and education in the ED setting for acute IBD flares. Additional research is needed to determine long-term benefits of reduced opioid exposure in this population.

The Association of ICH Exclusion Criteria With Mortality and Disability Rates in ICH Patients Receiving 4F-PCC for Anticoagulation Reversal.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) exclusion criteria in the landmark four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) trial have not been incorporated into clinical practice and incremental predictive ability is unknown. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the association of meeting at least 1 ICH exclusion criterion with the composite end point in-hospital mortality and modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 5 or 6. Determine the number and combination of criteria associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of adult ICH patients who received 4F-PCC for anticoagulant reversal. Patient demographics, ICH exclusion criteria, in-hospital mortality, disability, and disposition were collected. χ2 Analysis and logistic regression were used to assess differences between patients with and without ICH exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Data from 167 patients were analyzed: 103 (61.7%) met at least 1 ICH exclusion criterion. The composite end point occurred more in those with at least 1 ICH exclusion criterion (74.8% vs 39%; P < 0.0001). Presence of 2 or more ICH exclusion criteria was associated with higher odds of the composite end point, higher mRS score, and long-term care facility disposition (P < 0.0001). Glasgow Coma Scale score <7 and at least 1 other ICH exclusion criterion had negative effects on composite end point and mortality: 95% to 100% and 85% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patients meeting at least 1 ICH exclusion criterion had greater death/disability compared with those who did not. More ICH exclusion criteria were associated with higher rates of death, disability, and worse disposition. These data may aid in developing optimal 4F-PCC use criteria.

Ketamine Use in Prehospital and Hospital Treatment of the Acute Trauma Patient: A Joint Position Statement.

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) and the National Association of EMTs (NAEMT) have previously offered varied guidance on the use of ketamine in trauma patients. The following consensus statement represents the collective positions of the ACS-COT, ACEP, NASEMSO, NAEMSP and NAEMT. This updated uniform guidance is intended for use by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, EMS medical directors, emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, nurses and pharmacists in their treatment of the trauma patient in both the prehospital and hospital setting.

Appropriateness of tacrolimus therapeutic drug monitoring timing in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the appropriateness of the timing of serum samples collected in the emergency department (ED) for tacrolimus (TAC) measurement. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective review of TAC samples collected in the ED from September 1 to October 31, 2017. The primary evaluation was incidence of inappropriate sample collection for TAC measurement, defined as samples not collected 12 h (±2 h; 10-14 h) after the last dose, or within 2 h of the next dose if last known dose time was not documented. Incidence of repeat TAC measurements obtained within 24 h of ED presentation (if initial sample collection inappropriate), inappropriate TAC regimen adjustments, and healthcare costs of inappropriate TAC measurements was evaluated. Data collection included patient demographics, ED visit information, TAC measurement and timing related to last or next dose, changes to TAC regimen, and ED disposition. Descriptive data are reported. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were included. Forty-one (66%) initial TAC measurements were collected inappropriately in the ED. No patients had a regimen adjustment as a result of inappropriate concentration collection, but 32 patients (78%) did require a repeat measurement within 24 h of ED presentation due to initial inappropriate collection. Costs associated with incorrectly collected TAC measurements were $2,647.78 for the two-month time period and this is extrapolated to an estimated $15,886.68 annual expense for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate sample collection for TAC measurements was common in the ED, resulting in frequent repeat laboratory draws and increased healthcare costs.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services (Executive Summary): 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: Provide a multiorganizational statement to update the statement from a paper in 2000 about critical care pharmacy practice and makes recommendations for future practice. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting, and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: forty-four original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations were made for patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations are in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services: 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a multiorganizational statement to update recommendations for critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. A position paper outlining critical care pharmacist activities was last published in 2000. Since that time, significant changes in healthcare and critical care have occurred. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: 44 original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations represent the domain of patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations were made in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care pharmacists are essential members of the multiprofessional critical care team. The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Evaluation of opioid requirements in the management of renal colic after guideline implementation in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Evaluate opioid prescribing before and after emergency department (ED) renal colic guideline implementation focused on multi-modal pain management. METHODS: Retrospective study of ED patients who received analgesia for urolithiasis before and after guideline implementation. The guideline recommends oral acetaminophen, intravenous (IV) ketorolac, and a fluid bolus as first line, IV lidocaine as second line, and opioids as refractory therapy to control pain. Opioid exposure, adverse effects, length of stay (LOS), and ED representation were evaluated. Comparisons were made with univariate analyses. Backwards stepwise binomial multivariate logistic regression to identify factors related to opioid use was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 962 patients were included (451 pre- and 511 post-implementation). ED and discharge opioid use decreased; 65% vs. 58% and 71% vs. 63% in pre- and post-implementation groups, respectively. More post-implementation patients received non-opioid analgesia (65% vs. 56%) and non-opioid analgesia prior to opioids (50% vs. 38%). A longer ED LOS and higher initial pain score were associated with ED opioid administration. Guideline implementation, receiving non-opioid therapy first, and first renal colic episode were associated with decreased ED opioid administration. Seventeen adverse events (1.8%) were reported. There was no difference in change in ED pain score between groups, but patients in the post-implementation group were admitted more and had a higher 7-day ED representation (11% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal analgesia protocol for renal colic was associated with decreased opioid prescribing, higher rates of admission to the hospital, and a higher 7-day ED representation rate.

Effect of vitamin K administration on rate of warfarin reversal.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K is reported to begin reversing warfarin within 6 to 12 hours, but this may occur sooner. We sought to determine the rate of international normalized ratio (INR) reversal following vitamin K and relationships with dose, route, and baseline INR. METHODS: We evaluated adult patients receiving vitamin K monotherapy for warfarin reversal. Post-vitamin K INRs through 48 hours were collected. Relationships between vitamin K dose and route and baseline INR on rate of reversal and complete reversal (INR < 1.5) were evaluated. Assessment was performed graphically using scatter plots with a line of best fit and a counting process model to determine variables associated with achieving complete reversal. RESULTS: A total of 469 post-vitamin K INRs from 235 patients were included. Time to first INR follow-up after vitamin K administration averaged 10.5 ± 4.2 hours. A significant decrease was detected in INR values in comparison to the baseline INR (3.0 ± 1.9 vs. 4.7 ± 2.2; p < 0.01). Rapid and steady INR change began immediately after vitamin K administration (0-4 hr). A high vitamin K dose and intravenous route were associated with rapid INR change and complete reversal (Vitamin K 10 mg [hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.2] and IV route [hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.6]); however, overall complete reversal at 24 and 48 hours was low (14.5% and 41.7%, respectively). Higher baseline INR was associated with rapid INR change and lower baseline INR with complete reversal. CONCLUSION: Vitamin K alone starts to reverse warfarin immediately. High vitamin K doses and intravenous route are associated with faster INR reversal. Baseline INR also influences rate of correction and frequency of achieving complete reversal.

The impact of a pulmonary embolism response team on the efficiency of patient care in the emergency department.

The concept of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is multidisciplinary, with the hope that it may positively impact patient care, hospital efficiency, and outcomes in the treatment of patients with intermediate and high risk pulmonary embolism (PE). Clinical characteristics of a baseline population of patients presenting with submassive and massive PE to URMC between 2014 and 2016 were examined (n = 159). We compared this baseline population before implementation of a PERT to a similar population of patients at 3-month periods, and then as a group at 18 months after PERT implementation (n = 146). Outcomes include management strategies and efficiency of the emergency department (ED) in diagnosing, treating, and dispositioning patients. Before PERT, patients with submassive and massive PE were managed fairly conservatively: heparin alone (85%), or additional advanced therapies (15%). Following PERT, submassive and massive PE were managed as follows: heparin alone (68%), or additional advanced therapies (32%). Efficiency of the ED in managing high risk PE significantly improved after PERT compared with before PERT; where triage to diagnosis time was reduced (384 vs. 212 min, 45% decrease, p = 0.0001), diagnosis to heparin time was reduced (182 vs. 76 min, 58% decrease, p = 0.0001), and the time from triage to disposition was reduced (392 vs. 290 min, 26% decrease, p < 0.0001). Our analysis showed that following PERT implementation, patients with intermediate and high risk acute PE received more aggressive and advanced treatment modalities and received significantly expedited care in the ED.

Push dose pressors: Experience in critically ill patients outside of the operating room.

PURPOSE: Evaluate push dose vasopressor (PDP) practice patterns, efficacy, and safety in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill patients receiving phenylephrine or ephedrine PDP from November 2015-March 2017 were included. Patient demographics, medication administration details, vital signs pre- and post-administration, adverse effects, and medications errors were collected. Descriptive data are presented and comparisons were made with paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi-squared analysis or Fisher's Exact Test as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients (155 PDP events) were included; mean age 64.5 ±â€¯13.3 years and 66.4% males, respiratory failure (39.8%) or sepsis (24.9%) admission diagnosis. The surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (44.5%) and medical ICU (33.6%) used PDPs most often, and during the peri-intubation period (57.3%) or for other transient hypotension (38.2%). Following PDP, mean systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and heart rate (HR) increased 32.5% (80 to 106 mmHg), 27.2% (48 to 61 mmHg), and 6.4% (93 to 99 bpm), respectively. There were 17 (11.6%) adverse events; most often related to excessive increases in BP or HR and one incidence of dysrhythmia. Thirteen patients (11.2%) had a dose related medication error (phenylephrine dose >200 µg or ephedrine dose >25 mg), nine (6.2%) received PDP with normal/elevated hemodynamics (systolic BP > 100 mmHg or HR > 160 bpm) and 15% while on a continuous infusion vasopressor. CONCLUSION: PDPs were used in a variety of patient diagnoses and for select indications. Overall, they were efficacious but associated with adverse drug events and medication errors.