Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting. METHODS: This analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval -770.89, 685.90). CONCLUSIONS: IM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.

Midazolam-Droperidol, Droperidol, or Olanzapine for Acute Agitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine the most efficacious of 3 common medication regimens for the sedation of acutely agitated emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We undertook a randomized, controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy, clinical trial in 2 metropolitan EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. Patients aged 18 to 65 years and requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation were enrolled and randomized to an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg, droperidol 10 mg, or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg, or olanzapine 5 mg. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 10 minutes. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-nine patients were randomized to the 3 groups. Baseline characteristics were similar across the groups. Ten minutes after the first dose, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group were adequately sedated compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups: differences in proportions 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0% to 38.1%) and 25.4% (95% CI 12.7% to 38.3%), respectively. For times to sedation, the differences in medians between the midazolam-droperidol group and the droperidol and olanzapine groups were 6 (95% CI 3 to 8) and 6 (95% CI 3 to 7) minutes, respectively. Patients in the midazolam-droperidol group required fewer additional doses or alternative drugs to achieve adequate sedation. The 3 groups' adverse event rates and lengths of stay did not differ. CONCLUSION: Midazolam-droperidol combination therapy is superior, in the doses studied, to either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for intravenous sedation of the acutely agitated ED patient.

Safewards in acute medical/surgical care wards: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model and Theoretical Domains Framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safewards is an evidence-based practice improvement model to minimise conflict in inpatient mental health units. There is limited published research on implementing Safewards in acute medical/surgical care wards. OBJECTIVE: To identify, from nurses' perspectives, barriers, and facilitators to implement four Safewards interventions in acute medical/surgical care wards. METHODS: This article reports qualitative findings from a funded mixed-method evaluation of the Safewards Acute Care Pilot Project. Six focus group interviews comprising 35 nursing staff from four hospitals in Victoria, Australia were completed between April and October 2022. The semi-structured interview guide included questions developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model. Data was thematically analysed and mapped to a matrix combining Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model and the Theoretical Domains Framework to elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementing four Safewards interventions in acute medical/surgical care wards. RESULTS: Three components in the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model and three Theoretical Domains Framework domains were identified as barriers to the adoption of Safewards in acute medical/surgical care wards. Specific barriers included physical opportunity challenges related to the environmental context and resources domains. The key themes included time constraints and competing priorities; lack of physical space and infrastructure; and poor patient uptake due to lack of understanding. Gaps emerged as a psychological capability barrier within the Theoretical Domains Framework knowledge domain. Additionally, resistance to practice changes was associated with the motivation component of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour model. Conversely, six TDF domains were relevant to facilitating the implementation of the Safewards interventions: memory, attention, and decision processes; physical skills; social influences; social/professional role and identity; goals; and beliefs about consequences. Key facilitators included the Safewards interventions serving as reminders to focus on compassionate nursing care; nursing staff possessing the skillset for interventions; peer pressure and mandated change; supportive and passionate leadership; presence of champions to drive momentum; belief in nursing staff ownership and expertise for leading implementation; personal commitment to improve work environments and care quality; and the belief that Safewards would improve ward culture. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators can inform strategies for enhancing staff capability to implement Safewards in acute care wards. Specifically, a tailored, multilayered approach focusing on leadership support, training, resources, patient input, and feedback can promote effective adoption of the Safewards model and adaptation of discrete interventions. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Safewards adaptation: Addressing barriers like resources, space, and patient awareness; leveraging peer modelling and leadership strategies for success.

Implementation and use of the Safewards model in healthcare services: A scoping review.

Safewards is a multi-intervention mental health nursing model of practice improvement aimed at preventing and reducing conflict and containment. The use of Safewards has now extended beyond mental health settings. Implementation of Safewards has been reported to be challenging and therefore requires an evidence-informed and structured approach. This review's objectives were to: (i) Comprehensively map approaches used to implement Safewards interventions; (ii) Characterise the outcomes measured in Safewards implementation studies; and (iii) Identify the facilitators and barriers to Safewards training and its implementation in practice. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods publications of Safewards, the interventions, evaluations, barriers and facilitators from all healthcare services internationally were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews were used to guide methodology. Data were reported according to the 12 items of the TIDieR. Twenty-seven publications reported the implementation of Safewards. Descriptions were limited for reporting items such as intervention descriptions, materials, resources, specific procedures and processes, modifications made to interventions and delivery of interventions and training. No consistent theoretical implementation framework was reported. Collaboration, leadership, feedback and co-design were strong drivers for staff buy-in, engagement and success for implementation in mental health and acute settings. Transparency, replicability and generalisation require a detailed description of all elements of an intervention being implemented. Without adequate information, only assumptions can be drawn about the clinical governance and process of the implementation and training, and it is difficult to conclude when attempting to replicate the interventions.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes for mental health patients admitted to a behavioural assessment unit: Implications for model of care and practice.

Behavioural assessment units (BAU) have been established in emergency departments (EDs) to provide short-term observation, treatment, and care to people experiencing acute behavioural disturbance. A prospective observational study was conducted in a cohort of adult patients admitted to one BAU located within an ED (July-December 2017) to compare clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and use of restrictive interventions for those who received a specialist mental health (MH) assessment with those who did not. Of the 457 patients, 61.5% received a specialist MH assessment. This group had a lower acuity (Australasian Triage Score 10.4%; CI 0.2-2.0% vs 13.6%; CI 9.3-19.5%); more arrived with police (28.8%; CI 23.8-34.3 vs 5.1%; CI 2.7-9.4%); and were subjected to restrictive interventions while in the BAU. Security responses for unarmed threat (code grey) were higher (10.9%; CI 7.8-15.0% vs 4.4%; CI 2.3-8.5%), as was the use of chemical restraint (4.2%; CI 2.4-7.2 vs 0.0% CI 0.0 - 2.1%). Those requiring specialist MH assessment had a longer length of stay (12.7 vs 5.2 hours). Further development of the BAU model of care must include targeted, evidence-based strategies to minimize the use of restrictive interventions and ensure timely access to acute mental health services.

The Snake Study: Survey of National Attitudes and Knowledge in Envenomation.

Despite recent reviews of best practice for the treatment of Australian venomous bites and stings, there is controversy about some aspects of care, particularly the use of antivenom. Our aim was to understand current attitudes and practice in the management of suspected snake envenoming. A single-stage, cross-sectional survey of Australian emergency care physicians who had treated snake envenomation in the previous 36 months was conducted. Hospital pharmacists were also invited to complete a survey about antivenom availability, usage, and wastage in Australian hospitals. The survey was available between 5 March and 16 June 2019. A total of 121 snake envenoming cases were reported, and more than a third (44.6%) of patients were not treated with antivenom. For those treated with antivenom (n = 67), 29 patients (43%) received more than one ampoule. Nearly a quarter of respondents (21%) identified that antivenom availability was, or could be, a barrier to manage snake envenoming, while cost was identified as the least important factor. Adverse reactions following antivenom use were described in 11.9% of cases (n = 8). The majority of patients with suspected envenoming did not receive antivenom. We noted variation in dosage, sources of information, beliefs, and approaches to the care of the envenomed patient.

Amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients admitted to the emergency department behavioural assessment unit: Screening and referral outcomes.

Amphetamine-type stimulant use, including methamphetamine, amphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, is associated with a range of behavioural symptoms. Screening for amphetamine-type stimulant use among people presenting to the emergency department with behavioural disturbance and referral to treatment has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use among patients admitted to a behavioural assessment unit and report referral outcomes. A prospective observational design was used. Individuals who tested positive or self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use were referred to the alcohol and other drug clinician. We measured the prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use in saliva and by self-report along with rates of referral. The setting was a behavioural assessment unit located within an Australian emergency department. Admitted adults were enrolled from July to December 2017. Those who tested positive or self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use were provided with harm reduction advice and offered referral. Four hundred and seventy-two tests were performed. Fifteen were excluded due to invalid results or redundant enrolment. Of the 457 individuals, 59% were male, with a mean age of 35 years (SD 13). Fifty-three (11.6%, 95% CI: 8.9-15.0) tested positive for amphetamine-type stimulants. Of those with a negative test, 44 (9.6%, 95% CI: 7.3-12.7) self-reported amphetamine-type stimulant use in the previous 24 hours. The prevalence of amphetamine-type stimulant use was 21.2% (95% CI: 17.7-25.2). Most accepted referral to the alcohol and other drug clinician (85.6%, 95% CI 77.2-91.2). The emergency visit represents a window of opportunity for screening for amphetamine-type stimulant use and initiating referrals.

Risk Factors for Sedation-related Events During Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe the incidence, nature, and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) among patients who received parenteral sedation for acute agitation in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: We undertook a prospective observational study and a clinical trial of parenteral sedation for the management of acute agitation. We included agitated adult patients who required parenteral sedation from 2014 to 2017 in 12 Australian EDs, excluding those with incomplete information or aged under 18 years. The primary outcome was the number of patients who experienced at least one AE. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with AEs. RESULTS: A total of 904 patients were included in the analyses (62.3% male; median age = 34 years, range = 18 to 95 years). Of these, 144 (15.9%) patients experienced at least one AE. The most common AEs were oxygen desaturation (7.4%), airway obstruction (3.6%), bradycardia (1.9%), hypotension (1.7%), and prolonged QTc interval (1.3%). No deaths or serious AEs were reported. The following factors had an increased adjusted odds ratio (OR) for experiencing an AE: age 65 years and older (OR = 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 7.2), more than one type of parenteral sedation administered within 60 minutes (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4 to 3.1), and alcohol intoxication (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation-related AEs are common, especially respiratory events. Elderly patients, sedation with multiple sedatives within 60 minutes, and alcohol intoxication increased the risk.

Economic Evaluation of Midazolam-Droperidol Combination, Versus Droperidol or Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Within-Trial Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The combination of midazolam and droperidol has proven superior to droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy in the management of acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs). OBJECTIVE: This is the first economic analysis to evaluate the cost-benefit and cost effectiveness of the midazolam-droperidol combination compared with droperidol or olanzapine for the management of acute agitation in EDs. METHODS: This analysis used data derived from a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial conducted in two metropolitan Australian EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. The economic evaluation was from the perspective of Australian public hospital EDs. The main outcomes included agitation management time and the agitation-free time gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: The midazolam-droperidol combination was the least costly regimen (Australian dollars [AU$]46.25 per patient) compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups (AU$92.18 and AU$110.45 per patient, respectively). The main cost driver for all groups was the cost of the labour required during the initial adequate sedation. The combination afforded an additional 10-13 min of mean agitation-free time gained, which can be translated to additional savings of AU$31.24-42.60 per patient compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups. The benefit-cost ratio for the midazolam-droperidol combination was 12.2:1.0, or AU$122,000 in total benefit for every AU$10,000 spent on management of acute agitation. Sensitivity analyses over key variables indicated these results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: The midazolam-droperidol combination may be a cost-saving and dominant cost-effective regimen for the treatment of acute agitation in EDs as it is more effective and less costly than either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy.

Don't Label Me: A Qualitative Study of Patients' Perceptions and Experiences of Sedation During Behavioral Emergencies in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Behavioral emergencies are commonly seen in emergency departments (EDs). Acutely agitated patients can be difficult to manage and sedation may be required to decrease dangerous behavior and to ensure the safety of both the patient and the staff. While the experience of staff caring for this population has been reported, patients' experiences with their overall management remains unknown. We aimed to describe the perceptions and experiences of patients regarding the use of sedation during acute behavioral emergencies. METHODS: Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with adults aged 18 years or older, who had received parenteral sedative medication for the management of a behavioral emergency and were deemed capable to participate. The participants were asked about their experiences of receiving care in the ED during the episode and their perceptions of sedation. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 13 interviews. Two broad themes emerged: trusting relationships and needs or wants following sedation. A trusting relationship is built through 1) confidence in care, 2) sedation as an appropriate treatment, 3) insight into own behavior, and 4) humane treatment. Four subthemes of needs or wants were identified: 1) empathy, 2) debrief, 3) addressing concerns, and 4) follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A trusting relationship was identified as crucial to minimize the negative impact of coercive measures used to manage behavioral emergencies. Participants expressed similar needs to patients presenting with medical problems. This study illustrates their needs for compassionate communication, adequate information about the treatment provided, and follow-up care.

Intravenous midazolam-droperidol combination, droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for methamphetamine-related acute agitation: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To examine the efficacy and safety of (1) midazolam-droperidol versus droperidol and (2) midazolam-droperidol versus olanzapine for methamphetamine-related acute agitation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, controlled, clinical trial was conducted in two Australian emergency departments, between October 2014 and September 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred and sixty-one patients, aged 18-65 years, requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation, were enrolled into this study. We report the results of a subgroup of 92 methamphetamine-affected patients. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients were assigned randomly to receive either an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg combined, droperidol 10 mg or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg or olanzapine 5 mg, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients sedated adequately at 10 minutes. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (ORs, 95% CI) were estimated. FINDINGS: The baseline characteristics of patients in the three groups were similar. At 10 minutes, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group [29 of 34 (85.3%)] were sedated adequately compared with the droperidol group [14 of 30 (46.7%), OR = 6.63, 95% CI = 2.02-21.78] or with the olanzapine group [14 of 28 (50.0%), OR 5.80, 95% CI = 1.74-19.33]. The number of patients who experienced an adverse event (AE) in the midazolam-droperidol, droperidol and olanzapine groups was seven of 34, two of 30 and six of 28, respectively. The most common AE was oxygen desaturation. CONCLUSION: A midazolam-droperidol combination appears to provide more rapid sedation of patients with methamphetamine-related acute agitation than droperidol or olanzapine alone.