Droperidol administration among emergency department patients with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to examine the common usage patterns of droperidol in the relatively unrestricted environment of an urban, academic medical center. We focused specifically on the most common use of droperidol in our department: patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. METHODS: For this retrospective, observational, single-center study, we extracted records of all administrations of droperidol from August 2019 to August 2020. Patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting, or any combination thereof, were included in data analysis. RESULTS: Between April 2019 to August 2020, 830 discrete patient visits involving droperidol administration were identified, comprising 706 patients. The average age was 39 years old with a range of 15 to 80. Seven patients (0.08%) were younger than 18, and 35 (4%) were older than 65. Five hundred sixty-five patients (68%) were female. Droperidol doses ranged from 0.625 mg to 5 mg intravenous (IV), with a median dose of 0.625 mg (interquartile range 0.625-1.25 mg), with 590 patients (71%) receiving a dose of 0.625 mg. Only 19 patients (2.3%) had a documented adverse event. Seven had akathisia or restlessness, 7 had anxiety or agitation, 3 had dystonia or stiffness, 1 had fatigue, and 1 had dizziness. For the entire cohort, there were no cardiac dysrhythmias, syncope, seizures, other major adverse events, or fatalities recorded. CONCLUSION: At one institution, droperidol is being used commonly for the chief complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The preferred dosing is nearly universally below the 2.5 mg IV dose for which the FDA warning applies. Similar to previous studies, identification of adverse events was rare, and no major adverse outcomes such as dysrhythmia or death were identified.

Utah ski patrol: assessing training types and resources.

BACKGROUND: Skiers and snowboarders incur a variety of injuries and medical emergencies each year at ski resorts. The ski patrol is primarily responsible for initial triage, assessment and stabilization of these problems. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to subjectively evaluate the type of training, resources, and equipment available to local ski patrols within Utah. METHODS: Ski patrol directors at ski resorts in Utah were asked to complete a voluntary computerized survey. RESULTS: Of the 14 ski areas in Utah, ski patrol directors representing 8 resorts responded. The majority of patrols in Utah use Outdoor Emergency Care (OEC) as their primary education and certification source. Most programs also include site-specific training in addition to basic certification. All responding resorts had basic first responder equipment, including splinting devices, basic airway management, and hemorrhage control. Six of 8 responding resorts had affiliated clinics, and all had access to aeromedical transport. All of the responding ski patrol directors believed the current training level was adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Utah area ski patrollers frequently see trauma-related injuries and have the resources to assess and provide initial immobilization techniques. Many resorts have affiliated clinics with advanced providers, and all have access to aeromedical support to rapidly transfer patients to trauma centers. Medical directors may be of use for training as well as developing extended scope of practice protocols for advanced airway use or medication administration. Patrols may benefit from additional resort-specific training that addresses other frequently seen injuries or illnesses.

Search and rescue in the Intermountain West states.

BACKGROUND: Minimal data exist regarding the activity, membership, training, and medical oversight of search and rescue (SAR) teams. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe these characteristics in the Intermountain West SAR organizations. METHODS: A contact list was generated and electronic surveys were sent to SAR officials in each Intermountain West county. Results were descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Of the contacted jurisdictions, 56% (156) responded to the survey. The annual average call volume was 29 missions (range, 5 to 152). Multiple levels of medical training were represented on SAR teams, ranging from first aid/cardiopulmonary resuscitation providers to the physician level, and 79% of teams provided some medical training to their membership. Of the SAR medical professionals, 23% had formal wilderness medical training. Local emergency medical services provided 60% of the medical care on SAR missions rather than SAR personnel. Formal physician medical oversight was present in 41% of the SAR teams. These physicians participated in a range of SAR activities including medical protocol drafting (including expanded scope of practice), medical trainings, mission participation, medical consultation, and prescribing medications for field use. The majority (69%) of those physicians were trained in emergency medicine, and 45% of the active medical directors had protocols allowing for an expanded scope of practice due to the remote nature of SAR medical care. CONCLUSIONS: Intermountain West SAR teams vary in their activity, composition, training, and level of medical oversight. This study confirms that opportunities exist for physician integration with SAR teams in the studied states and likely throughout the United States.

Geriatric patients may not experience increased risk of oligoanalgesia in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the pain management practices in geriatric patients in the emergency department (ED) with that in other adult ED patients to determine whether these patients face increased risk of oligoanalgesia. METHODS: This study was a prospective analysis of a convenience sample of patients presenting to an urban academic tertiary care hospital ED from 2000 through 2010. We compared patients aged 65 years and older (geriatric) with adults younger than 65 years and evaluated analgesic administration rates, opioid administration and dosing, and pain and satisfaction scores (0 to 10 scale). RESULTS: A total of 15,387 patients presented to the ED during the 10-year study period and agreed to participate in the study; 1,169 patients were geriatric (7.6%). Geriatric patients had a mean age of 75.0 years (SD 7.2 years), whereas mean age of the 14,218 nongeriatric patients was 35.5 years (SD 12.2 years). Geriatric patients reported less pain at presentation (6.2 versus 6.9). After adjusting for presentation pain scores, geriatric patients were not less likely to receive an analgesic during the ED visit (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.05) or less likely to receive an opioid (odds ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.18). Geriatric patients, on average, received lower doses of morphine (3.3 versus 4.2 mg) and had longer waiting times for their initial dose of an analgesic medication (65 versus 75 minutes). CONCLUSION: Despite longer wait times for analgesia, geriatric and nongeriatric patients were similar in rates of analgesia and opioid administration for pain-related complaints. These findings contrast with previous studies reporting lower rates of analgesia administration among geriatric patients.