Differences Between Emergency Nurse Perception and Patient Reported Experience With an ED HIV and Hepatitis C Virus Screening Program.

INTRODUCTION: Nontargeted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and targeted hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening for selected high-risk patients (those born between 1945 and 1965 and those who report injection drug use) was integrated into our ED triage process and carried out by nurses. Determining whether emergency nurses accurately perceive what patients experience is important to know because staff misperceptions may pose a barrier to program adherence and sustainability. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of emergency nurses and patients to assess the accuracy of emergency nurses' perception of patient experience with the HIV/HCV screening program. Respondents evaluated their level of agreement using a 5-item Likert scale for 9 statements across 4 domains related to the patient experience with the screening process (satisfaction, sense of autonomy, sense of privacy, and comfort level). RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 65 of the 153 eligible emergency nurses (42%). Of the 1040 patients approached, 610 (59%) were eligible, and 491 of the 610 eligible patients (80%) completed surveys. Across all domains, statistically significant differences were found between emergency nurse perception and patient report, P < .001. Emergency nurses perceived patients to be less satisfied with the screening program, more uncomfortable with being asked screening questions, more concerned about privacy issues, and less likely to feel that the decision to decline screening was autonomous than were patients. DISCUSSION: Emergency nurses not only frequently misperceive how patients experience ED-based HIV/HCV screening, but these misperceptions are skewed toward the negative, representing a type of staff bias. Further research is recommended to determine if such misperceptions adversely affect implementation of screening.

Phenobarbital for acute alcohol withdrawal: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AAWS) is encountered in patients presenting acutely to the Emergency Department (ED) and often requires pharmacologic management. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether a single dose of intravenous (i.v.) phenobarbital combined with a standardized lorazepam-based alcohol withdrawal protocol decreases intensive care unit (ICU) admission in ED patients with acute alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to receive either a single dose of i.v. phenobarbital (10 mg/kg in 100 mL normal saline) or placebo (100 mL normal saline). All patients were placed on the institutional symptom-guided lorazepam-based alcohol withdrawal protocol. The primary outcome was initial level of hospital admission (ICU vs. telemetry vs. floor ward). RESULTS: There were 198 patients enrolled in the study, and 102 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Fifty-one patients received phenobarbital and 51 received placebo. Baseline characteristics and severity were similar in both groups. Patients that received phenobarbital had fewer ICU admissions (8% vs. 25%, 95% confidence interval 4-32). There were no differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of i.v. phenobarbital combined with a symptom-guided lorazepam-based alcohol withdrawal protocol resulted in decreased ICU admission and did not cause increased adverse outcomes.