Dataset Information

Structured sedation programs in the emergency department, hospital and other acute settings: protocol for systematic review of effects and events.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of procedural sedation outside the operating theatre has increased in hospital settings and has gained popularity among non-anesthesiologists. Sedative agents used for procedural pain, although effective, also pose significant risks to the patient if used incorrectly. There is currently no universally accepted program of education for practitioners using or introducing procedural sedation into their practice. There is emerging literature identifying structured procedural sedation programs (PSPs) as a method of ensuring a standardized level of competency among staff and reducing risks to the patient. We hypothesize that programs of education for healthcare professionals using procedural sedation outside the operating theatre are beneficial in improving patient care, safety, practitioner competence and reducing adverse event rates.

Methods/design

Electronic databases will be systematically searched for studies (randomized and non-randomized) examining the effectiveness of structured PSPs from 1966 to present. Database searches will be supplemented by contact with experts, reference and citation checking, and a grey literature search. No language restriction will be imposed. Screening of titles and abstracts, and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. All disagreements will be resolved by discussion with an independent third party. Data analysis will be completed adhering to procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. If the data allows, a meta-analysis will be performed.

Discussion

This review will cohere evidence on the effectiveness of structured PSPs on sedation events and patient outcomes within the hospital and other acute care settings. In addition, it will examine key components identified within a PSP associated with patient safety and improved patient outcomes.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013003851.

SUBMITTER: McCoy S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3850685 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Structured sedation programs in the emergency department, hospital and other acute settings: protocol for systematic review of effects and events.

McCoy Siobhán S Wakai Abel A Blackburn Carol C Barrett Michael M Murphy Adrian A Brenner Maria M Larkin Philip P Crispino-O'Connell Gloria G Ratnapalan Savithiri S O'Sullivan Ronan R

Systematic reviews 20131001

<h4>Background</h4>The use of procedural sedation outside the operating theatre has increased in hospital settings and has gained popularity among non-anesthesiologists. Sedative agents used for procedural pain, although effective, also pose significant risks to the patient if used incorrectly. There is currently no universally accepted program of education for practitioners using or introducing procedural sedation into their practice. There is emerging literature identifying structured procedur ...[more]

PMID: 24083519

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceProcedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is standard practice in emergency departments worldwide. Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted in 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada between July 10, 2010, and February 28, 2015. Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure were enrolled in the study. Of the 9657 patients eligible for inclusion, 6760 (70.0%) were enrolled and 6295 (65.1%) were included in the final analysis.ExposuresThe primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication. The secondary risk factors were demographic characteristics, preprocedural medications and fasting status, current or underlying health risks, and procedure type.Main outcomes and measuresFour outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting.ResultsOf the 6295 children included in this study, 4190 (66.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 8.0 (4.6) years. Adverse events occurred in 736 patients (11.7%; 95% CI, 6.4%-16.9%). Oxygen desaturation (353 patients [5.6%]) and vomiting (328 [5.2%]) were the most common of these adverse events. There were 69 SAEs (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%), and 86 patients (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-2.1%) had a significant intervention. Use of ketamine hydrochloride alone resulted in the lowest incidence of SAEs (17 [0.4%]) and significant interventions (37 [0.9%]). The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication. Compared with ketamine alone, propofol alone (3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 2.3-13.1) and the combinations of ketamine and fentanyl citrate (3.2%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-15.2) and ketamine and propofol (2.1%; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.3-8.7) had the highest incidence of SAEs. The combinations of ketamine and fentanyl (4.1%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.1) and ketamine and propofol (2.5%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) had the highest incidence of significant interventions.Conclusions and relevanceThe incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication. Use of ketamine only was associated with the best outcomes, resulting in significantly fewer SAEs and interventions than ketamine combined with propofol or fentanyl.

Project description:OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in the emergency department (ED) during procedural sedation in the paediatric population. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies from the past 10?years were included. We adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. SETTING:ED. PARTICIPANTS:Children. INTERVENTIONS:Procedural sedation. OUTCOMES:Adverse events like vomiting, agitation, hypoxia and apnoea. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% CIs. RESULTS:A total of 1177 studies were retrieved for screening and 258 were selected for full-text review. 41 studies reporting on 13?883 procedural sedations in 13?876 children (?18?years) were included. The most common adverse events (all reported per 1000 sedations) were: vomiting 55.5 (CI 45.2 to 65.8), agitation 17.9 (CI 12.2 to 23.7), hypoxia 14.8 (CI 10.2 to 19.3) and apnoea 7.1 (CI 3.2 to 11.0). The need to intervene with either bag valve mask, oral airway or positive pressure ventilation occurred in 5.0 per 1000 sedations (CI 2.3 to 7.6). The incidences of severe respiratory events were: 34 cases of laryngospasm among 8687 sedations (2.9 per 1000 sedations, CI 1.1 to 4.7; absolute rate 3.9 per 1000 sedations), 4 intubations among 9136 sedations and 0 cases of aspiration among 3326 sedations. 33 of the 34 cases of laryngospasm occurred in patients who received ketamine. CONCLUSIONS:Serious adverse respiratory events are very rare in paediatric procedural sedation in the ED. Emesis and agitation are the most frequent adverse events. Hypoxia, a late indicator of respiratory depression, occurs in 1.5% of sedations. Laryngospasm, though rare, happens most frequently with ketamine. The results of this study provide quantitative risk estimates to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, informed consent and resource allocation in children undergoing procedural sedation in the ED.

Project description:ObjectivesThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department (ED).MethodsEight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty-five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately.ConclusionsSerious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision-making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Project description:BackgroundWhile effective engagement of patients and families in treatment is increasingly viewed as a priority for many healthcare systems, much remains to be learned about the nature and outcomes of approaches that seek to accomplish this goal in the acute care hospital setting. Wide variability in the implementation of practices designed to promote patient and family engagement in hospitals has been noted. Approaches aimed at promoting patient and family engagement in treatment share the over-arching goal of changing behaviors of patients, families, and healthcare providers and possibly administrators. Behavior change techniques (BCTs) can be a key element of patient and family engagement approaches. This scoping review will contribute to the development of an evidence base detailing that the BCTs have potential to be effective in patient and family engagement interventions. The specific objectives of this review are to (a) identify and classify approaches used in acute care hospitals to engage patient and families in treatment according to the behavior change technique taxonomy; and (b) evaluate and synthesize the outcomes for these approaches for patients and families, healthcare providers, and health administrators/funders.MethodsThis systematic scoping review will allow us to determine the extent, range, and nature of research activity related to initiatives designed to promote patient and family engagement in care. A comprehensive electronic literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies will be included if they report on outcomes of a structured or systematic approach to the promotion of adult inpatient and family engagement in treatment in acute care settings. Studies will be selected in a two-stage screening process (title and abstract; full text) and quality will be assessed using the mixed methods assessment tool. Data extraction will include narrative descriptions of the intervention and classification of the behavior change techniques employed.DiscussionThis review aims to identify and classify the specific behavior change techniques underpinning patient and family engagement interventions used in acute care hospital settings. By identifying the "active ingredients" in these interventions, our findings will be transferable to a wide range of acute care hospital contexts and populations.

Project description:Background:Procedural sedation is a core skill of the emergency physician. Bolus administration of propofol is widely utilised in UK emergency departments to provide procedural sedation. Bolus administration of propofol, titrated to an endpoint of sedation, has a rapid effect but can easily result in apnoea and loss of airway patency. The use of a target-controlled infusion of propofol allows for controlled titration to an effect site concentration and may reduce the rate of adverse incidents. Target-controlled infusion of propofol is not currently used in emergency departments.The primary aim of this feasibility study is to ensure that propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) is acceptable to the patient and that recruitment rates are adequate to power a randomised controlled trial comparing propofol target-controlled infusion versus bolus administration. Methods:This study will recruit in four emergency departments in Scotland, UK. Patients aged 18-65?years with anterior shoulder dislocation, weighing ??50?kg and fasted ??90?min, will be screened. Recruited patients will undergo emergency reduction of a dislocated shoulder facilitated by procedural sedation utilising TCI of propofol.The widespread adoption of TCI propofol by emergency departments will require evidence that it is safe, potentially effective, patient centred and a timely method of providing procedural sedation. The primary endpoint will be acceptability measured by patient satisfaction. The secondary endpoints will include incidence and severity of adverse events, number of shoulder reduction attempts, nursing opinion of patient experience, patient's reported pain score and time from commencement of TCI propofol sedation to desired sedation level.The study will be open for recruitment from April 2017 to December 2018. Discussion:If the study demonstrates patient acceptability with adequate recruitment, we will be in a position to determine the feasibility of progression to a randomised controlled clinical trial of TCI compared to bolus administration of propofol. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442803. Registered retrospectively on 22 February 2018.

Project description:Importance:It is not clear whether adherence to preprocedural fasting guidelines prevent pulmonary aspiration and associated adverse outcomes during emergency department (ED) sedation of children. Objective:To examine the association between preprocedural fasting duration and the incidence of sedation-related adverse outcomes in a large sample of children. Design, Setting, and Participants:We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study of children aged 0 to 18 years who received procedural sedation for a painful procedure in 6 Canadian pediatric EDs from July 2010 to February 2015. The primary risk factor was preprocedural fasting duration. Secondary risk factors were age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, preprocedural and sedation medications, and procedure type. Main Outcomes and Measures:Four outcomes were examined: (1) pulmonary aspiration, (2) the occurrence of any adverse event, (3) serious adverse events, and (4) vomiting. Results:A total of 6183 children with a median age of 8.0 years (interquartile range, 4.0-12.0 years), of whom 6166 (99.7%) had healthy or mild systemic disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists levels I or II), were included in the analysis. Of these, 2974 (48.1%) and 310 (5.0%) children did not meet American Society of Anesthesiologists fasting guidelines for solids and liquids, respectively. There were no cases of pulmonary aspiration. There were 717 adverse events (11.6%; 95% CI, 10.8%-12.4%), of which 68 (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.3%) were serious adverse events and 315 (5.1%; 95% CI, 4.6%-5.7%) were vomiting. The odds ratio (OR) of occurrence of any adverse event, serious adverse events, and vomiting did not change significantly with each additional hour of fasting duration for both solids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.02; serious adverse events, OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) and liquids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; serious adverse events: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, there was no association between fasting duration and any type of adverse event. These findings do not support delaying sedation to meet established fasting guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been shown to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use and its consequences. However, these programs lack legislative requirements in many places and it can be difficult to determine what human resources are required for these programs and how to create a business case to present to hospital administrators for program funding. The objectives of the current paper were to review legislative requirements and outline human resource requirements for ASPs, and to create a base business case for ASPs.MethodsA working group of antimicrobial stewardship experts from across Canada met to discuss the necessary components for creation of a business case for antimicrobial stewardship. A narrative review of the literature of the regulatory requirements and human resource recommendations for ASPs was conducted. Informed by the review and using a consensus decision-making process, the expert working group developed human resource recommendations based on a 1000 bed acute care health care facility in Canada. A spreadsheet based business case model for ASPs was also created.ResultsLegislative and /or regulatory requirements for ASPs were found in 2 countries and one state jurisdiction. The literature review and consensus development process recommended the following minimum human resources complement: 1 physician, 3 pharmacists, 0.5 program administrative and coordination support, and 0.4 data analyst support as full time equivalents (FTEs) per 1000 acute care beds. Necessary components for the business case model, including the human resource requirements, were determined to create a spreadsheet based model.ConclusionsThere is evidence to support the negative outcomes of inappropriate antimicrobial use as well as the benefits of ASPs. Legislative and /or regulatory requirements for ASPs are not common. The available evidence for human resource recommendations for ASPs using a narrative review process was examined and a base business case modelling scenario was created. As regulatory requirements for ASPs increase, it will be necessary to create accurate business cases for ASPs in order to obtain the necessary funding to render these programs successful.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate geriatric education programs for emergency department (ED) professionals based on: content and teaching methods and learning outcome effects and factors promoting or hindering program implementation.DesignSystematic review.SettingED.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurses, and medical residents working in the ED.Methods and measurementFive major biomedical databases were searched for (quasi) experimental studies, published between 1990 and April 2018, evaluating geriatric education programs for ED professionals. Data were synthesized around study quality, learning participants, teaching content and methods, and Kirkpatrick learning outcomes.ResultsNine before-after studies were included. Learners were mostly ED residents and, to a smaller extent, ED nurses and physicians. Study quality was moderate, with the lowest scores on sampling and instrument validity. Programs varied from a 1-day workshop to a 2-year curriculum, mostly combining didactic lectures with active and experiential learning formats. Topics commonly addressed included managing: geriatric syndromes, trauma and falls, medication, atypical presentations, and care transitions. Statistically significant improvements were mostly found in learners' knowledge acquisition (six studies). Significant improvements were also found in single studies on: self-reported geriatric screening, documentation of geriatric care, and appropriate urinary catheter placement. Factors promoting program implementation included: solving competing educational demands and busy work schedules, embedding the program in preexisting curricula, and close collaboration between emergency and geriatric medicine faculties.ConclusionsVarious geriatric education programs improve the geriatric knowledge of ED professionals and seem to positively impact their clinical practice. However, more program evaluations with larger study samples, and use of valid and reliable outcome measures, are needed to provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of such programs. J Am Geriatr Soc, 1-8, 2019. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2402-2409, 2019.

Dataset Information

Structured sedation programs in the emergency department, hospital and other acute settings: protocol for systematic review of effects and events.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Structured sedation programs in the emergency department, hospital and other acute settings: protocol for systematic review of effects and events.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure