Intravenous administration of prochlorperazine by 15-minute infusion versus 2-minute bolus does not affect the incidence of akathisia: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the rate of akathisia after administration of intravenous prochlorperazine as a 2-minute bolus or 15-minute infusion. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study in the emergency department of a central-city teaching hospital. Patients aged 18 years or older treated with prochlorperazine for headache, nausea, or vomiting were eligible for inclusion. Study participants were randomized to receive 10 mg of prochlorperazine administered intravenously by means of 2-minute push (bolus group) or 10 mg diluted in 50 mL of normal saline solution administered by means of intravenous infusion during a 15-minute period (infusion group). The main outcome was the number of study participants experiencing akathisia within 60 minutes of administration. Akathisia was defined as either a spontaneous report of restlessness or agitation or a change of 2 or more in the patient-reported akathisia rating scale and a change of at least 1 in the investigator-observed akathisia rating scale. The intensity of headache and nausea was measured with a 100-mm visual analog scale. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled. One study participant was excluded after protocol violation. Seventy-three percent (73/99) of the study participants were treated for headache and 70% (70/99) for nausea. In the bolus group, 26.0% (13/50) had akathisia compared with 32.7% (16/49) in the infusion group (Delta=-6.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -24.6% to 11.2%). The difference between the bolus and infusion groups in the percentage of participants who saw a 50% reduction in their headache intensity within 30 minutes was 11.8% (95% CI -9.6% to 33.3%). The difference in the percentage of patients with a 50% reduction in their nausea was 12.6% (95% CI -4.6% to 29.8%). CONCLUSION: A 50% reduction in the incidence of akathisia when prochlorperazine was administered by means of 15-minute intravenous infusion versus a 2-minute intravenous push was not detected. The efficacy of prochlorperazine in the treatment of headache and nausea likewise did not appear to be affected by the rate of administration, although no formal statistical comparisons were made.

Sublingual hyoscyamine sulfate in combination with ketorolac tromethamine for ureteral colic: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the safety and efficacy of a single dose of hyoscyamine sulfate in combination with ketorolac tromethamine for the reduction of pain in emergency department patients with ureteral colic. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study at 2 EDs with residency programs in emergency medicine. Patients were at least 18 years old and presented to the ED with an initial history and physical examination consistent with ureteral colic. Patients received a single intravenous dose of 30 mg of ketorolac tromethamine given over a 1-minute period with either a single sublingual dose of 0.125 mg of hyoscyamine sulfate or a placebo. If inadequate analgesia was noted after 30 minutes, a standard dose of meperidine could be administered for rescue. All other treatments including intravenous fluids and antiemetics were standardized. The main study outcome was change in visual analog scale pain score from baseline to 30 minutes. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were evaluated for inclusion. Thirteen patients who had self-administered pain medications within 4 hours of presentation were excluded before randomization. Sixteen patients who did not have a renal calculus confirmed by either intravenous urogram or helical computed tomography were also excluded from efficacy analysis. There did not appear to be any clinically important differences in the baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. The repeated-measures analysis of the remaining 43 patients showed no clinically important difference in pain score using the visual analog scale at any time point. There were no clinically important differences between the 2 study groups for amount of rescue meperidine administered or end-of-study global satisfaction scores. CONCLUSION: Hyoscyamine sulfate did not provide any additional pain relief from ureteral colic when administered with ketorolac tromethamine. There was no clinically important difference in change of pain scores at 30 minutes in patients with ureteral colic receiving supplemental hyoscyamine sulfate.

How do physicians and nurses spend their time in the emergency department?

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine how emergency physicians and nurses spend their time on emergency department activities. METHODS: An observational time-and-motion study was performed at a 36-bed ED with annual census of 84,000 in a central city teaching hospital sponsoring an emergency medicine residency program. Participants were emergency medicine faculty physicians, second- and third-year emergency medicine resident physicians, and emergency nurses. A single investigator followed individual health care providers for 180-minute periods and recorded time spent on various activities, type and number of activities, and distance walked. Activities were categorized as direct patient care (eg. history and physical examination), indirect patient care (eg. charting), or non-patient care (eg. break time). RESULTS: On average, subjects spent 32% of their time on direct patient care, 47% on indirect patient care, and 21% on non-patient care Faculty physicians, residents, and emergency nurses differed in the time spent on these three categories of activities. Although the overall time spent on direct patient care activities was not significantly different, emergency nurses spent more of their time (2.2%) providing comfort measures (a subcategory of direct patient care) than did faculty physicians (.05%) or resident physicians (.03%). Emergency nurses spent 38.9% of their time performing indirect care, whereas faculty physicians spent 51.3% and resident physicians 53.7%. Resident physicians spent more time charting than did faculty physicians or emergency nurses (21.4%, 11.9%, and 6.9%, respectively). Emergency nurses spent more time on personal activities than did physicians, and faculty physicians walked less than either emergency nurses or resident physicians. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians and nurses spent almost half of their time on indirect patient care. Physicians spent significantly more time on indirect patient care activities and significantly less time on personal activities than did nurses.

The use of a break-even analysis: financial analysis of a fast-track program.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the financial break-even point and illustrate how changes in third-party reimbursement and eligibility could affect a program's fiscal standing. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and financial data were collected retrospectively for 446 patients treated in a fast-track program during June 1993. The fast-track program is located within the confines of the emergency medicine and trauma center at a 1,050-bed tertiary care Midwestern teaching hospital and provides urgent treatment to minimally ill patients. A financial break-even analysis was performed to determine the point where the program generated enough revenue to cover its total variable and fixed costs, both direct and indirect. RESULTS: Given the relatively low average collection rate (62%) and high percentage of uninsured patients (31%), the analysis showed that the program's revenues covered its direct costs but not all of the indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Examining collection rates or payer class mix without examining both costs and revenues may lead to an erroneous conclusion about a program's fiscal viability. Sensitivity analysis also shows that relatively small changes in third-party coverage or eligibility (income) requirements can have a large impact on the program's financial solvency and break-even volumes.

Hand washing frequency in an emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Previous studies, conducted mainly in ICUs, have shown low compliance with hand-washing recommendations, with failure rates approaching 60%. Hand washing in the emergency department has not been studied. We examined the frequency and duration of hand washing in one ED and the effects of three variables: level of training, type of patient contact (clean, dirty, or gloved), and years of staff clinical experience. DESIGN: Observational. SETTING: ED of an 1,100-bed tertiary referral, central city, private teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency nurses, faculty, and resident physicians. Participants were informed that their activities were being monitored but were unaware of the exact nature of the study. INTERVENTIONS: An observer recorded the number of patient contacts and activities for each participant during three-hour observation periods. Activities were categorized as either clean or dirty according to a scale devised by Fulkerson. The use of gloves was noted and hand-washing technique and duration were recorded. A hand-washing break in technique was defined as failure to wash hands after a patient contact and before proceeding to another patient or activity. RESULTS: Eleven faculty, 11 resident physicians, and 13 emergency nurses were observed. Of 409 total contacts, 272 were clean, 46 were dirty, and 91 were gloved. Hand washing occurred after 32.3% of total contacts (SD, 2.31%). Nurses washed after 58.2% of 146 contacts (SD, 4.1%), residents after 18.6% of 129 contacts (SD, 3.4%), and faculty after 17.2% of 134 contacts (SD, 3.3%). Nurses had a significantly higher hand washing frequency than either faculty (P < .0001) or resident physicians (P < .0001). Hand washes occurred after 28.4% of 272 clean contacts (SD, 2.34%), which was significantly less (P < .0001) than 50.0% of 46 dirty contacts (SD, 7.4%) and 64.8% of 91 gloved contacts (SD, 5.0%). The number of years of clinical experience was not significantly related to hand-washing frequency (P = .82). Soap and water were used in 126 of the hand washes, and an alcohol preparation was used in the remaining six. The average duration of soap-and-water hand washes was 9.5 seconds. CONCLUSION: Compliance with hand washing recommendations was low in this ED. Nurses washed their hands significantly more often than either staff physicians or resident physicians, but the average hand-washing duration was less than recommended for all groups. Poor compliance in the ED may be due to the large number of patient contacts, simultaneous management of multiple patients, high illness acuity, and severe time constraints. Strategies for improving compliance with this fundamental method of infection control need to be explored because simple educational interventions have been unsuccessful in other health care settings.

Hand washing frequency in an emergency department.

Objectives Previous studies, conducted mainly in ICUs, have shown low compliance with hand-washing recommendations, with failure rates approaching 60%. Hand washing in the emergency department has not been studied. We examined the frequency and duration of hand washing in one emergency department and the effects of three variables: level of training, type of patient contact (clean, dirty, or gloved), and years of staff clinical experience. Design Observational. Setting ED of a 1100-bed tertiary referral, central city, private teaching hospital. Participants Emergency nurses, faculty, and resident physicians. Participants were informed that their activities were being monitored but were unaware of the exact nature of the study. Interventions An observer recorded the number of patient contacts and activities for each participant during 3-hour observation periods. Activities were categorized as either clean or dirty according to a scale devised by Fulkerson. The use of gloves was noted and hand-washing technique and duration were recorded. A hand-washing break in technique was defined as failure to wash hands after a patient contact and before proceeding to another patient or activity. Results Eleven faculty, 11 resident physicians, and 13 emergency nurses were observed. Of 409 total contacts, 272 were clean, 46 were dirty, and 91 were gloved. Hand washing occurred after 32.3% of total contacts (SD, 2.31%). Nurses washed after 58.2% of 146 contacts (SD, 4.1%), residents after 18.6% of 129 contacts (SD, 3.4%), and faculty after 17.2% of 134 contacts (SD, 3.3%). Nurses had a significantly higher hand washing frequency than either faculty (p < 0.0001) or resident physicians (p < 0.0001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)