260 research outputs found

    Intravenous Midazolam-Droperidol (combination), Droperidol (only) or Olanzapine (only) for the acutely agitated patient: A multi-centred, randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, clinical trial

    Get PDF
    AIM: To determine the most efficacious of three currently used drug regimens for the sedation of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department ...postprin

    Midazolam-droperidol, droperidol or olanzapine for acute agitation: a randomised clinical trial

    Get PDF
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine the most efficacious of 3 common medication regimens for the sedation of acutely agitated emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We undertook a randomized, controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy, clinical trial in 2 metropolitan EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. Patients aged 18 to 65 years and requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation were enrolled and randomized to an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg, droperidol 10 mg, or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg, or olanzapine 5 mg. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 10 minutes. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-nine patients were randomized to the 3 groups. Baseline characteristics were similar across the groups. Ten minutes after the first dose, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group were adequately sedated compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups: differences in proportions 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0% to 38.1%) and 25.4% (95% CI 12.7% to 38.3%), respectively. For times to sedation, the differences in medians between the midazolam-droperidol group and the droperidol and olanzapine groups were 6 (95% CI 3 to 8) and 6 (95% CI 3 to 7) minutes, respectively. Patients in the midazolam-droperidol group required fewer additional doses or alternative drugs to achieve adequate sedation. The 3 groups' adverse event rates and lengths of stay did not differ. CONCLUSION: Midazolam-droperidol combination therapy is superior, in the doses studied, to either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for intravenous sedation of the acutely agitated ED patient. Copyright © 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.postprin

    Understanding practice: the factors that influence management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department - a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework

    Get PDF
    Background: Mild traumatic brain injury is a frequent cause of presentation to emergency departments. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines in this area, there is variation in practice. One of the aims of the Neurotrauma Evidence Translation program is to develop and evaluate a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed intervention to improve the management of mild traumatic brain injury in Australian emergency departments. This study is the first step in the intervention development process and uses the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore the factors perceived to influence the uptake of four key evidence-based recommended practices for managing mild traumatic brain injury. / Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with emergency staff in the Australian state of Victoria. The interview guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore current practice and to identify the factors perceived to influence practice. Two researchers coded the interview transcripts using thematic content analysis. / Results: A total of 42 participants (9 Directors, 20 doctors and 13 nurses) were interviewed over a seven-month period. The results suggested that (i) the prospective assessment of post-traumatic amnesia was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; skills; social/professional role and identity; and beliefs about capabilities; (ii) the use of guideline-developed criteria or decision rules to inform the appropriate use of a CT scan was influenced by: knowledge; beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; beliefs about capabilities; social influences; skills and behavioral regulation; (iii) providing verbal and written patient information on discharge was influenced by: beliefs about consequences; environmental context and resources; memory, attention and decision processes; social/professional role and identity; and knowledge; (iv) the practice of providing brief, routine follow-up on discharge was influenced by: environmental context and resources; social/professional role and identity; knowledge; beliefs about consequences; and motivation and goals. Conclusions: Using the Theoretical Domains Framework, factors thought to influence the management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department were identified. These factors present theoretically based targets for a future intervention

    Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available, and yet, clinical practice remains inconsistent with the guidelines. The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention was developed to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations and improve the management of minor head injury in Australian emergency departments (EDs). However, the adoption of this type of intervention typically entails an upfront investment that may or may not be fully offset by improvements in clinical practice, health outcomes and/or reductions in health service utilisation. The present study estimates the cost and cost-effectiveness of the NET intervention, as compared to the passive dissemination of the guideline, to evaluate whether any improvements in clinical practice or health outcomes due to the NET intervention can be obtained at an acceptable cost. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Study setting: The NET cluster randomised controlled trial [ACTRN12612001286831]. Study sample: Seventeen EDs were randomised to the control condition and 14 to the intervention. One thousand nine hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis of clinical practice outcomes (NET sample). A total of 343 patients from 14 control and 10 intervention EDs participated in follow-up interviews and were included in the analysis of patient-reported health outcomes (NET-Plus sample). Outcome measures: Appropriate post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) screening in the ED (primary outcome). Secondary clinical practice outcomes: provision of written information on discharge (INFO) and safe discharge (defined as CT scan appropriately provided plus PTA plus INFO). Secondary patient-reported, post-discharge health outcomes: anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-concussive symptoms (Rivermead), and preference-based health-related quality of life (SF6D). Methods: Trial-based economic evaluations from a health sector perspective, with time horizons set to coincide with the final follow-up for the NET sample (2 months post-intervention) and to 1-month post-discharge for the NET-Plus sample. Results: Intervention and control groups were not significantly different in health service utilisation received in the ED/inpatient ward following the initial mTBI presentation (adjusted mean difference 23.86perpatient;9523.86 per patient; 95%CI − 106, 153;p=0.719)oroverthelongerfollowupintheNETplussample(adjustedmeandifference153; p = 0.719) or over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference 341.78 per patient; 95%CI − 58,58, 742; p = 0.094). Savings from lower health service utilisation are therefore unlikely to offset the significantly higher upfront cost of the intervention (mean difference 138.20perpatient;95138.20 per patient; 95%CI 135, 141;p<0.000).Estimatesoftheneteffectoftheinterventionontotalcost(interventioncostnetofhealthserviceutilisation)suggestthattheinterventionentailssignificantlyhighercoststhanthecontrolcondition(adjustedmeandifference141; p < 0.000). Estimates of the net effect of the intervention on total cost (intervention cost net of health service utilisation) suggest that the intervention entails significantly higher costs than the control condition (adjusted mean difference 169.89 per patient; 95%CI 43,43, 297, p = 0.009). This effect is larger in absolute magnitude over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference 505.06;95505.06; 95%CI 96, 915;p=0.016),mostlyduetoadditionalhealthserviceutilisation.Fortheprimaryoutcome,theNETinterventionismorecostlyandmoreeffectivethanpassivedissemination;entailinganadditionalcostof915; p = 0.016), mostly due to additional health service utilisation. For the primary outcome, the NET intervention is more costly and more effective than passive dissemination; entailing an additional cost of 1246 per additional patient appropriately screened for PTA (169.89/0.1363;Fiellers95169.89/0.1363; Fieller’s 95%CI 525, $2055). For NET to be considered cost-effective with 95% confidence, decision-makers would need to be willing to trade one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for 25 additional patients appropriately screened for PTA. While these results reflect our best estimate of cost-effectiveness given the data, it is possible that a NET intervention that has been scaled and streamlined ready for wider roll-out may be more or less cost-effective than the NET intervention as delivered in the trial. CONCLUSION: While the NET intervention does improve the management of mTBI in the ED, it also entails a significant increase in cost and—as delivered in the trial—is unlikely to be cost-effective at currently accepted funding thresholds. There may be a scope for a scaled-up and streamlined NET intervention to achieve a better balance between costs and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831, date registered 12 December 2012

    Two-Minute k-Space and Time–accelerated Aortic Four-dimensional Flow MRI: Dual-Center Study of Feasibility and Impact on Velocity and Wall Shear Stress Quantification

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: To investigate the two-center feasibility of highly k-space and time (k-t)–accelerated 2-minute aortic four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI and to evaluate its performance for the quantification of velocities and wall shear stress (WSS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study prospectively included 68 participants (center 1, 11 healthy volunteers [mean age ± standard deviation, 61 years ± 15] and 16 patients with aortic disease [mean age, 60 years ± 10]; center 2, 14 healthy volunteers [mean age, 38 years ± 13] and 27 patients with aortic or cardiac disease [mean age, 78 years ± 18]). Each participant underwent highly accelerated 4D flow MRI (k-t acceleration, acceleration factor of 5) of the thoracic aorta. For comparison, conventional 4D flow MRI (acceleration factor of 2) was acquired in the participants at center 1 (n = 27). Regional aortic peak systolic velocities and three-dimensional WSS were quantified. RESULTS: k-t–accelerated scan times (center 1, 2:03 minutes ± 0:29; center 2, 2:06 minutes ± 0:20) were significantly reduced compared with conventional 4D flow MRI (center 1, 12:38 minutes ± 2:25; P < .0001). Overall good agreement was found between the two techniques (absolute differences ≤15%), but proximal aortic WSS was significantly underestimated in patients by using k-t–accelerated 4D flow when compared with conventional 4D flow (P ≤ .03). k-t–accelerated 4D flow MRI was reproducible (intra- and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.98) and identified significantly increased peak velocities and WSS in patients with stenotic (P ≤ .003) or bicuspid (P ≤ .04) aortic valves compared with healthy volunteers. In addition, k-t–accelerated 4D flow MRI–derived velocities and WSS were inversely related to age (r ≥−0.53; P ≤ .03) over all healthy volunteers. CONCLUSION: k-t–accelerated aortic 4D flow MRI providing 2-minute scan times was feasible and reproducible at two centers. Although consistent healthy aging- and disease-related changes in aortic hemodynamics were observed, care should be taken when considering WSS, which can be underestimated in patients

    Implementing evidence-based recommended practices for the management of patients with mild traumatic brain injuries in Australian emergency care departments: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Mild head injuries commonly present to emergency departments. The challenges facing clinicians in emergency departments include identifying which patients have traumatic brain injury, and which patients can safely be sent home. Traumatic brain injuries may exist with subtle symptoms or signs, but can still lead to adverse outcomes. Despite the existence of several high quality clinical practice guidelines, internationally and in Australia, research shows inconsistent implementation of these recommendations. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of a targeted, theory- and evidence-informed implementation intervention to increase the uptake of three key clinical recommendations regarding the emergency department management of adult patients (18 years of age or older) who present following mild head injuries (concussion), compared with passive dissemination of these recommendations. The primary objective is to establish whether the intervention is effective in increasing the percentage of patients for which appropriate post-traumatic amnesia screening is performed. / Methods/design: The design of this study is a cluster randomised trial. We aim to include 34 Australian 24-hour emergency departments, which will be randomised to an intervention or control group. Control group departments will receive a copy of the most recent Australian evidence-based clinical practice guideline on the acute management of patients with mild head injuries. The intervention group will receive an implementation intervention based on an analysis of influencing factors, which include local stakeholder meetings, identification of nursing and medical opinion leaders in each site, a train-the-trainer day and standardised education and interactive workshops delivered by the opinion leaders during a 3 month period of time. Clinical practice outcomes will be collected retrospectively from medical records by independent chart auditors over the 2 month period following intervention delivery (patient level outcomes). In consenting hospitals, eligible patients will be recruited for a follow-up telephone interview conducted by trained researchers. A cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation using mixed-methods will be conducted. Sample size calculations are based on including 30 patients on average per department. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group allocation. / Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831 (date registered 12 December 2012)

    Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review

    Get PDF
    We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required
    corecore