Ogilvie Thom MBBS, Kym Roberts MN, BN, Susan Devine PhD, Richard C Franklin PhD
{"title":"Criteria for early discharge of drowning patients from the emergency department","authors":"Ogilvie Thom MBBS, Kym Roberts MN, BN, Susan Devine PhD, Richard C Franklin PhD","doi":"10.1111/1742-6723.70012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Clinical factors previously shown to independently predict safe discharge were applied at ED presentation to determine whether we could identify a group of drowning patients who do not require treatment and are thus safe for rapid discharge.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective study of drowning presentations to EDs of the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service in Queensland, Australia between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2022. Rapid discharge criteria (RDC) were defined as a normal spontaneous respiratory rate (adjusted for age), a normal peripheral blood saturation (≥94%) on room air, an Alert measurement on the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive scale, clear chest auscultation and the absence of any requirement for oxygen or other ventilatory assistance from Emergency Medical Services. Primary outcome was the requirement for treatment (oxygen, ventilation or airway intervention).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Five hundred and seventy-seven drowning presentations were included. Two hundred and fifty-five (44.2%) patients met RDC at ED presentation. Patients meeting RDC were more likely to be younger (median 9 years, IQR 3–21 <i>vs</i> 20 years, IQR 4–44, <i>P</i> < 0.016) than those with not meeting RDC. Eight patients meeting RDC had received bystander CPR. There were no deaths in the RDC group (0/255 (0%) <i>vs</i> 17/322 (5.3%), <i>P</i> < 0.016). No patient meeting RDC required treatment (0/255 (0%) <i>vs</i> 145/322 (45.0%), <i>P</i> < 0.016).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Drowning patients who meet rapid discharge criteria at ED presentation will not require treatment for their drowning and may be considered for discharge from the ED without further investigation or mandatory period of observation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11604,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1742-6723.70012","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1742-6723.70012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
Clinical factors previously shown to independently predict safe discharge were applied at ED presentation to determine whether we could identify a group of drowning patients who do not require treatment and are thus safe for rapid discharge.
Method
We conducted a retrospective study of drowning presentations to EDs of the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service in Queensland, Australia between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2022. Rapid discharge criteria (RDC) were defined as a normal spontaneous respiratory rate (adjusted for age), a normal peripheral blood saturation (≥94%) on room air, an Alert measurement on the Alert, Voice, Pain, Unresponsive scale, clear chest auscultation and the absence of any requirement for oxygen or other ventilatory assistance from Emergency Medical Services. Primary outcome was the requirement for treatment (oxygen, ventilation or airway intervention).
Results
Five hundred and seventy-seven drowning presentations were included. Two hundred and fifty-five (44.2%) patients met RDC at ED presentation. Patients meeting RDC were more likely to be younger (median 9 years, IQR 3–21 vs 20 years, IQR 4–44, P < 0.016) than those with not meeting RDC. Eight patients meeting RDC had received bystander CPR. There were no deaths in the RDC group (0/255 (0%) vs 17/322 (5.3%), P < 0.016). No patient meeting RDC required treatment (0/255 (0%) vs 145/322 (45.0%), P < 0.016).
Conclusions
Drowning patients who meet rapid discharge criteria at ED presentation will not require treatment for their drowning and may be considered for discharge from the ED without further investigation or mandatory period of observation.
目的:将先前显示的独立预测安全出院的临床因素应用于ED表现,以确定我们是否可以识别一组不需要治疗的溺水患者,因此可以安全快速出院。方法:我们对2015年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间澳大利亚昆士兰州阳光海岸医院急诊部的溺水病例进行了回顾性研究。快速出院标准(RDC)定义为:正常的自主呼吸频率(根据年龄调整),房间空气正常的外周血饱和度(≥94%),在警报、声音、疼痛、无反应量表中达到警报测量值,胸部听诊清晰,不需要急诊医疗服务的氧气或其他通气辅助。主要终点是治疗需求(氧气、通气或气道干预)。结果共纳入577例溺水病例。255例(44.2%)患者在ED报告时达到RDC。符合RDC的患者比不符合RDC的患者更年轻(中位9岁,IQR 3-21 vs 20岁,IQR 4-44, P < 0.016)。8名符合RDC的患者接受了旁观者CPR。RDC组无死亡病例(0/255 (0%)vs 17/322 (5.3%), P < 0.016)。没有符合RDC的患者需要治疗(0/255 (0%)vs 145/322 (45.0%), P < 0.016)。结论:满足急诊科快速出院标准的溺水患者不需要对其进行治疗,无需进一步调查或强制观察即可考虑从急诊科出院。
期刊介绍:
Emergency Medicine Australasia is the official journal of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine (ASEM), and publishes original articles dealing with all aspects of clinical practice, research, education and experiences in emergency medicine.
Original articles are published under the following sections: Original Research, Paediatric Emergency Medicine, Disaster Medicine, Education and Training, Ethics, International Emergency Medicine, Management and Quality, Medicolegal Matters, Prehospital Care, Public Health, Rural and Remote Care, Technology, Toxicology and Trauma. Accepted papers become the copyright of the journal.