Long-acting neuromuscular paralysis without concurrent sedation in emergency care.

OBJECTIVE: Neuromuscular paralysis without sedation is an avoidable medical error with negative psychologic and potentially physiologic consequences. We determine the frequency of long-acting paralysis without concurrent sedation among patients intubated in our emergency department (ED) or before arrival. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study from July 2007 to August 2009. We chose this time interval because in 2006, our institution developed a multidisciplinary plan designed to improve care of intubated patients. We identified all mechanically ventilated patients using billing codes. We reviewed all records to identify use of long-acting neuromuscular blocking agents. We captured data on patient characteristics and location of intubation, using a standardized data collection form. We report bivariate risk ratios to quantify associations with lack of concurrent sedation. A priori, we defined concurrent sedation as administration of any sedative during the 60 minutes preceding and the 15 minutes after administration of the long-acting paralytic. RESULTS: Over the 26-month period of study, 292 patients received a long-acting paralytic. Of the 212 available for analysis, 39 (18%) did not receive concurrent sedation. Every decade of age increased the risk of paralysis without concurrent sedation by 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.4). Paralysis for intubation (vs for transport or ventilation management) increased the odds of no sedation by 2.1 (95% CI, 1.2-3.7). No other covariates predicted nonsedation. CONCLUSION: Absence of concurrent sedation was common among patients receiving long-acting neuromuscular paralysis before arrival or at our ED, despite implementation of a guideline to improve practice.

Timeliness of Recommended Follow-Up After an Abnormal Finding on Diagnostic Chest CT in Smokers at High Risk of Developing Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Diagnostic chest CT frequently results in abnormal findings that require follow-up. We assessed the timeliness of follow-up after CT abnormalities were identified in symptomatic smokers at high risk for developing lung cancer. METHODS: In an academic primary care network, we identified current smokers aged 55-79 years who received a diagnostic chest CT to evaluate symptoms during 2012. Medical chart abstraction identified radiologist recommendations and follow-up care. The outcome was the proportion of patients who received timely follow-up (within 30 days of recommendation) after an abnormal chest CT. We assessed for predictors of compliance with recommended follow-up. RESULTS: Of 3,257 eligible smokers, 446 (14%) had a chest CT during 2012. We excluded 70 patients who already had lung cancer, died, had imaging done elsewhere, or left the practice. Of the remaining 376 patients, 337 (90%) had abnormal chest CT findings, and 184 (55%) had a specific follow-up recommendation. Among those with recommended follow-up, only 102 of 184 (55%) had timely follow-up. Those who had a CT performed to evaluate pulmonary disease and those receiving care in community health centers were more likely to receive timely follow-up. Of 27 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer, 18 (67%) had their first oncology visit within 30 days of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing diagnostic chest CTs, most received follow-up for abnormal findings, but it was often delayed. Systems to support patients in obtaining recommended follow-up are needed to ensure that the benefits of lung cancer screening translate into usual clinical practice.