Screening Questions for Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Risk Knowledge.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate screening questions for estimating nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) risk knowledge. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a telephone interview of NSAID users 50 years or older from 39 physician practices in Alabama were used. Patient-reported awareness of prescription NSAID risk and health literacy were the independent variables, and a cumulative index score of objectively tested knowledge of 4 prominent NSAID risks was the dependent variable. General linearized latent and mixed model ordered logistic regression was used to estimate associations among the independent variables, covariates, and objectively tested NSAID risk knowledge. Population-averaged probabilities for levels of objectively tested NSAID risk knowledge were subsequently estimated. RESULTS: Subjective awareness of any prescription NSAID risk (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-3.74), adequate health literacy (AOR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.04-2.83), and physician counseling about 1 or more NSAID risks (AOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.09-2.61) were significantly and positively associated with NSAID risk knowledge. The probability of correctly answering at least 1 of the 4 NSAID risk knowledge questions was 70% in the absence of any subjective risk awareness and in less than adequate health literacy. Whereas the probability of correctly answering at least 1 of the 4 NSAID risk knowledge questions increased to 86% in the presence of subjective awareness of any prescription NSAID risk and adequate health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Screening questions for subjective NSAID risk awareness and health literacy are predictive of objectively tested NSAID knowledge and can be used to triage patients as well as subsequently initiate and direct a conversation about NSAID risk.

Guideline on the use of ipecac syrup in the out-of-hospital management of ingested poisons.

The use of gastric emptying techniques, including ipecac-induced emesis, in the management of poisoned patients has declined significantly in recent years. Historically, poison centers used ipecac syrup in two ways. Ipecac syrup was administered to patients prior to referral to the emergency department in attempts to start the gastric emptying process as early as possible. Additionally, poison centers used ipecac syrup in attempts to keep patients from requiring referral to medical facilities. In these situations, ipecac syrup was administered in the home and poison center staff performed follow-up telephone calls to gauge progress and outcome. Studies to determine the effectiveness of ipecac syrup demonstrate that it induces vomiting in a high percentage of people to whom it is administered and that it decreases the gastrointestinal absorption of ingested substances in a time-dependent fashion. However, the effectiveness of ipecac syrup in affecting patient outcome has not been studied in adequate clinical trials. Its effectiveness in preventing drug absorption has only been documented for a limited number of substances and is substantially reduced if it is given more than 30-90 minutes following ingestion of the toxic material. There are potentially significant contraindications, adverse effects and related problems associated with the use of ipecac syrup. It is the consensus of the panel that the circumstances in which ipecac-induced emesis is the appropriate or desired method of gastric decontamination are rare. The panel concluded that the use of ipecac syrup might have an acceptable benefit-to-risk ratio in rare situations in which: there is no contraindication to the use of ipecac syrup; and there is substantial risk of serious toxicity to the victim; and there is no alternative therapy available or effective to decrease gastrointestinal absorption (e.g., activated charcoal); and there will be a delay of greater than 1 hour before the patient will arrive at an emergency medical facility and ipecac syrup can be administered within 30-90 minutes of the ingestion; and ipecac syrup administration will not adversely affect more definitive treatment that might be provided at a hospital. In such circumstances, the administration of ipecac syrup should occur only in response to a specific recommendation from a poison center, emergency department physician, or other qualified medical personnel. The panel decided not to address the issue of whether ipecac should remain a nonprescription, over-the-counter product. The panel does not support the routine stocking of ipecac in all households with young children but was unable to reach consensus on which households with young children might benefit from stocking ipecac. Instead, the panel concluded that individual practitioners and poison control centers are best able to determine the particular patient population, geographic and other variables that might influence the decision to recommend having ipecac on hand.