Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Acute intoxication patients presenting to an emergency department in the Netherlands: admit or not? Prospective testing of two algorithms
  1. R G A Ambrosius1,
  2. M P Vroegop2,
  3. F G A Jansman3,
  4. C W Hoedemaekers4,
  5. R E Aarnoutse5,
  6. G J van der Wilt6,
  7. C Kramers1
  1. 1Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Emergency Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, The Netherlands
  4. 4Department of Intensive Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  5. 5Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  6. 6Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Health Technology Assessment, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to C Kramers, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands; c.kramers{at}pharmtox.umcn.nl

Abstract

Study objective After acute intoxication, most patients presenting to the emergency department (ED)—76% of them in the Netherlands—are admitted to hospital. Many will not need medical treatment on the ward. The authors tested two algorithms in the ED, based on vital parameters, ECG findings, and ingested substances, to identify patients who will receive treatment in hospital.

Methods This prospective inception study enrolled patients aged 14 years and older presenting with acute intoxication between January 2006 and April 2008 to a Dutch university hospital. An algorithm was developed based on a previous retrospective study and the medical literature. In a second algorithm the clinical course during the stay in the ED was also taken into account.

Results Of 313 patients presenting with acute intoxication to the ED, 134 (42.8%) were admitted to a ward for somatic care, but only 74 (23.6%) were treated on the ward. Algorithm 1 had 91.9% sensitivity (95% CI 82.6% to 96.7%) and 53.6% specificity (95% CI 47.0% to 60.0%). Algorithm 2 had 90.5% sensitivity (95% CI 80.9% to 95.8%) and 65.3% specificity (95% CI 58.8% to 71.2%). In line with hospital policy, several patients received N-acetylcysteine treatment for subtoxic paracetamol ingestion because they presented outside of office hours, when no measurements of blood paracetamol concentration are performed by the laboratory. When these patients are considered as untreated, both algorithms had 98.5% sensitivity (95% CI 90.6% to 99.9%).

Conclusion The algorithms had good sensitivity and better specificity than current clinical practice in most hospitals. It is too early to advocate their implementation, but results indicate that it is possible to use clinical parameters objectively to reduce unnecessary admissions to the ward.

  • Poisoning
  • hospitalisation
  • patient selection
  • clinical protocol
  • emergency care systems
  • admission aviodance

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.