Anuradha Luke

Prescriptions for self-injectable epinephrine and follow-up referral in emergency department patients presenting with anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND Anaphylaxis guidelines recommend that patients with a history of anaphylactic reaction should carry self-injectable epinephrine and should be referred to an allergist. OBJECTIVE To evaluate how frequently patients dismissed from the emergency department after treatment for anaphylaxis received a prescription for self-injectable epinephrine or allergist referral. METHODS A retrospective medical record review identified patients with anaphylaxis in a community-based study from 1990 through 2000. Records of patients with Hospital Adaptation of the International Classification of Diseases, Second Edition or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes representing anaphylaxis were reviewed, and a random sample of patients with associated diagnoses was also reviewed. Patients who met the criteria for diagnosis of anaphylaxis were included in the study. RESULTS Among 208 patients identified with anaphylaxis, 134 (64.4%) were seen in the emergency department and discharged home. On dismissal, 49 patients (36.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.4%-44.7%) were prescribed self-injectable epinephrine, and 42 patients (31.3%; 95% CI, 23.5%-39.2%) were referred to an allergist. Treatment with epinephrine in the emergency department (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .001) and insect sting as the inciting allergen (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.6-10.5; P = .004) were significantly associated with receiving a prescription for self-injectable epinephrine. Patient age younger than 18 years was the only factor associated with referral to an allergist (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS Most patients dismissed after treatment for anaphylaxis did not receive a self-injectable epinephrine prescription or allergist referral. Emergency physicians may be missing an important opportunity to ensure prompt treatment of future anaphylactic reactions and specialized follow-up care.

FAST Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Triage Using the START Mass Casualty Triage System

Objective. To determine whether the FAST examination might be a useful adjunct to simple triage andrapid treatment (START) in the secondary triage of mass-casualty victims already classified as delayed (Yellow). Methods. A retrospective chart review was conducted of all adult trauma patients evaluated by the trauma surgery service at a level 1 trauma center between January 1 andDecember 31, 2003. Patients were retrospectively triaged to one of three START categories: immediate (Red), delayed (Yellow), or expectant (Black). The FAST results were obtained from the medical records. Results. FAST results were available for 359 patients, of which 27 were classified as positive. Twenty (6.9%) of 286 patients retrospectively triaged as delayed (Yellow) had positive FAST studies. Of these, six underwent operative intervention within 24 hours of arrival. A total of 232 patients had both FAST andcomputed tomography (CT) studies performed, of which 19 FAST studies were inconclusive. In the remaining 213 patients, six of 27 had falsely positive studies, while 24 of 186 had falsely negative studies. Conclusions. Portable ultrasound technology might have identified 20 delayed (Yellow) patients with evidence of hemoperitoneum, thereby expediting evacuation to definitive care. However, only 30% of these patients subsequently underwent an operative intervention within 24 hours of arrival. Both over- andundertriage were significant problems. As such, the current study does not support the routine use of FAST ultrasound as a secondary triage tool.

Pediatric emergency medical services in privately insured patients: A 10-year national claims analysis

OBJECTIVE To characterize pediatric Emergency Medicine Service (EMS) transports to the Emergency Department (ED) using a national claims database. METHODS We included children, 18 years and younger, transported by EMS to an ED, from 2007 to 2016 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis codes were used to categorize disease system involvement. Interventions performed were extracted using procedure codes. ED visit severity was measured by the Minnesota Algorithm. RESULTS Over a 10-year period, 239,243 children were transported. Trauma was the most frequent diagnosis category for transport for children ≥5 years of age, 35.1% (age 6-13) and 32.7% (age 14-18). The most common diagnosis category in children <6 years of age was neurologic (29.3%), followed by respiratory (23.1%). Over 10 years, transports for mental disorders represented 15.3% in children age 14 to 18, and had the greatest absolute increase (rate difference + 10.4 per 10,000) across all diagnoses categories. Neurologic transports also significantly increased in children age 14 to 18 (rate difference + 6.9 per 10,000). Trauma rates decreased across all age groups and had its greatest reduction among children age 14 to 18 (rate difference - 6.8 per 10,000). Across all age groups, an intervention was performed in 15.6%. Most children (83.3%) were deemed to have ED care needed type of visit, and 15.8% of the transports resulted in a hospital admission. CONCLUSION Trauma is the most frequent diagnosis for transport in children older than 5 years of age. Mental health and neurologic transports have markedly increased, while trauma transports have decreased. Most children arriving by ambulance were classified as requiring ED level of care. These changes might have significant implication for EMS personnel and policy makers.

Pediatric Prehospital Refusal of Medical Assistance: Association with Suspected Abuse or Neglect

Abstract Introduction: Unlike adult refusal of medical assistance (RMA), pediatric refusal is not initiated by the patient. This lack of autonomy may permit neglect by the guardian through denial of necessary treatment. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether pediatric RMA was associated with suspected abuse or neglect (SAN). Methods: This was a retrospective single EMS agency cross-sectional analysis of calls between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015 for patients <18 years of age resulting in RMA. Age- and complaint-matched control groups were generated from transported patients during the same time period. Recidivism was defined as 2 or more episodes of RMA involving a single patient during the study period. Results: A total of 241 calls for service resulted in RMA during the study period, representing 12.7% of all pediatric calls. Information regarding SAN was available for 202 calls. Recidivism was noted in 8 patients (17 calls for service), resulting in 185 unique patients. Twenty-one RMA patients (11.4%) were identified as SAN. No difference in SAN status was noted between RMA patients and age-matched controls (21 vs. 24, p = 0.75) and complaint-matched controls (21 vs. 26, p = 0.53). No SAN was identified in the 8 recidivist patients when compared with the 177 non-recidivist patients (0 vs. 21, p = 0.60). Conclusions: Pediatric SAN patients are not uncommon users of EMS in our service area. Neither RMA nor recidivist RMA was associated with the presence of SAN within our patient population.