Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus

M. Garriga, I. Pacchiarotti, S. Kasper, S. Zeller, M. Allen, G. Vázquez, L. Baldaçara, L. San, R. H. McAllister-Williams, K. Fountoulakis, P. Courtet, D. Naber, Esther W. Chan, A. Fagiolini, H. Möller, H. Grunze, P. Llorca, R. Jaffe, L. Yatham, D. Hidalgo-Mazzei, M. Passamar, T. Messer, M. Bernardo, E. Vieta
{"title":"Assessment and management of agitation in psychiatry: Expert consensus","authors":"M. Garriga, I. Pacchiarotti, S. Kasper, S. Zeller, M. Allen, G. Vázquez, L. Baldaçara, L. San, R. H. McAllister-Williams, K. Fountoulakis, P. Courtet, D. Naber, Esther W. Chan, A. Fagiolini, H. Möller, H. Grunze, P. Llorca, R. Jaffe, L. Yatham, D. Hidalgo-Mazzei, M. Passamar, T. Messer, M. Bernardo, E. Vieta","doi":"10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions. Methods An expert task force iteratively developed consensus using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new, re-worded or re-rated items. Results Out of 2175 papers assessing psychomotor agitation, 124 were included in the review. Each component was assigned a level of evidence. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 22 statements on this topic. Conclusions Recommendations on the assessment of agitation emphasise the importance of identifying any possible medical cause. For its management, experts agreed in considering verbal de-escalation and environmental modification techniques as first choice, considering physical restraint as a last resort strategy. Regarding pharmacological treatment, the “ideal” medication should calm without over-sedate. Generally, oral or inhaled formulations should be preferred over i.m. routes in mildly agitated patients. Intravenous treatments should be avoided.","PeriodicalId":22963,"journal":{"name":"The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry","volume":"98 1","pages":"128 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"199","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2015.1132007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 199

Abstract

Abstract Background Psychomotor agitation is associated with different psychiatric conditions and represents an important issue in psychiatry. Current recommendations on agitation in psychiatry are not univocal. Actually, an improper assessment and management may result in unnecessary coercive or sedative treatments. A thorough and balanced review plus an expert consensus can guide assessment and treatment decisions. Methods An expert task force iteratively developed consensus using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new, re-worded or re-rated items. Results Out of 2175 papers assessing psychomotor agitation, 124 were included in the review. Each component was assigned a level of evidence. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 22 statements on this topic. Conclusions Recommendations on the assessment of agitation emphasise the importance of identifying any possible medical cause. For its management, experts agreed in considering verbal de-escalation and environmental modification techniques as first choice, considering physical restraint as a last resort strategy. Regarding pharmacological treatment, the “ideal” medication should calm without over-sedate. Generally, oral or inhaled formulations should be preferred over i.m. routes in mildly agitated patients. Intravenous treatments should be avoided.
精神病学中躁动的评估和管理:专家共识
精神运动性躁动与不同的精神疾病有关,是精神病学的一个重要问题。目前关于精神病学中躁动的建议并不是明确的。实际上,不适当的评估和管理可能导致不必要的强制或镇静治疗。全面和平衡的审查加上专家共识可以指导评估和治疗决策。方法采用德尔菲法,由专家工作组迭代形成共识。最初的调查项目是基于对文献的系统回顾。随后的调查包括新的、重新措辞的或重新评级的项目。结果在2175篇评估精神运动性躁动的论文中,124篇被纳入本综述。每个成分都被分配了一个证据等级。综合工作队成员的证据和经验,就这一专题的22项发言达成了协商一致意见。关于躁动评估的建议强调了确定任何可能的医学原因的重要性。对于其管理,专家们同意将口头缓和和环境改变技术作为第一选择,将身体限制作为最后手段。在药物治疗方面,“理想”的药物应该是镇静,而不是过度镇静。一般情况下,口服或吸入制剂应优先于静脉注射途径在轻度激动的病人。应避免静脉注射治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信