Effectiveness and safety of droperidol in a United States emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Droperidol is a dopamine receptor antagonist that functions as an analgesic, sedative, and antiemetic. In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required a black box warning in response to case reports of QT prolongation and potential fatal arrhythmias. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of droperidol in patients presenting to a United States Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Observational cohort study of all droperidol administrations from 1/1/2012 through 4/19/2018 at an academic ED. The primary endpoint was mortality within 24 h of droperidol administration. Secondary endpoint included use of rescue analgesics. RESULTS: A total of 6,881 visits by 5,784 patients received droperidol of whom 6,353 visits authorized use of their records for research, including 5.4% administrations in children and 8.2% in older adults (≥65). Droperidol was used as an analgesic for pain (N = 1,387, 21.8%) and headache (N = 3,622, 57.0%), as a sedative (N = 550, 8.7%), and as an antiemetic (N = 794, 12.5%). No deaths secondary to droperidol administration were recorded within 24 h. Need for rescue analgesia occurred in 5.2% of patients with headache (N = 188) and 7.4% of patients with pain (N = 102); 1.1% of patients with headache received rescue opioids (N = 38) after droperidol, as did 5.4% of patients with pain other than headache (N = 75). No patients had fatal arrhythmias. Akathisia occurred in 2.9%. CONCLUSION: No fatalities were seen among this large cohort of patients who received droperidol in the ED. Our findings suggest droperidol's effectiveness and safety when used as an analgesic, antiemetic and/or sedative.

Integrating community-based health promotion programs and primary care: a mixed methods analysis of feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) for disease self-management and prevention is a policy priority. It is challenging to implement EBPs offered in community settings and to integrate them with healthcare. We sought to understand, categorize, and richly describe key challenges and opportunities related to integrating EBPs into routine primary care practice in the United States. METHODS: As part of a parent, participatory action research project, we conducted a mixed methods evaluation guided by the PRECEDE implementation planning model in an 11-county region of Southeast Minnesota. Our community-partnered research team interviewed and surveyed 15 and 190 primary care clinicians and 15 and 88 non-clinician stakeholders, respectively. We coded interviews according to pre-defined PRECEDE factors and by participant type and searched for emerging themes. We then categorized survey items-before looking at participant responses-according to their ability to generate further evidence supporting the PRECEDE factors and emerging themes. We statistically summarized data within and across responder groups. When consistent, we merged these with qualitative insight. RESULTS: The themes we found, "Two Systems, Two Worlds," "Not My Job," and "Seeing is Believing," highlighted the disparate nature of prescribed activities that different stakeholders do to contribute to health. For instance, primary care clinicians felt pressured to focus on activities of diagnosis and treatment and did not imagine ways in which EBPs could contribute to either. Quantitative analyses supported aspects of all three themes, highlighting clinicians' limited trust in community-placed activities, and the need for tailored education and system and policy-level changes to support their integration with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care and community-based programs exist in disconnected worlds. Without urgent and intentional efforts to bridge well-care and sick-care, interventions that support people's efforts to be and stay well in their communities will remain outside of-if not at odds with-healthcare.