改变4小时的目标是否有利于儿科手术镇静?服务评价

C. Stewart, P. Patel, N. Mediratta
{"title":"改变4小时的目标是否有利于儿科手术镇静?服务评价","authors":"C. Stewart, P. Patel, N. Mediratta","doi":"10.22259/2638-5007.0202002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: As Paediatric Emergency Departments (PED) become busier the number of children requiring painful procedures continues to increase. We aimed to evaluate a locally developed paediatric procedural sedations (PPS) service using ketamine for safety, efficiency and efficacy in the context of the national 4 hour operational target which is due to be revised this year in the UK Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients over 12 months suitable for PPS ketamine and collected data for demographics, time to patient identification, time to ketamine administration, procedural duration and time to recovery. We also documented procedure outcome, adverse events, consent, ketamine dosage and baseline physiological observations Results: From May 2017 to May 2018 ketamine PPS was performed on 36 patients with a mean age of 7 years (range 1.8 to 14.6 years). The most common procedure performed was manipulation of forearm fractures (n=21, 58%), followed by facial laceration repair (n=10, 28%). Total intravenous Ketamine dosages were; 1mg/kg (n=23, 64%) 1.5mg/kg (n=10, 28%) and 2mg/kg (n=3, 8%). Average time to referral to surgical speciality was 33 minutes which improved from 40 minutes (pre Sept) to 27 minutes (post Sept). Average time to ketamine administration was 168 minutes, improved from 185 minutes (pre Sept) to 155 minutes (post Sept). The average time taken to complete procedures, all under 20 minutes, also decreased from 19 minutes (pre Sept) to 10 minutes (post Sept) averaging 15 minutes overall. The recovery time was similar throughout the study period. The overall average length of stay (LOS) was 284 minutes, improved from 297 minutes (pre Sept) to 274 minutes (post Sept) figure 3. 20 (55%) of the 36 patients breached the 4 hour target. 10 (28%) patients were admitted, 9 for further neurovascular observations and only 1 where the outcome of a procedure was unsatisfactory. There were no seminal untoward incidents in our study. Vomiting occurred in 4, there was 1 drug error and one patient required brief airway manoeuvres for decreased oxygen saturations Conclusion: We have confirmed PPS ketamine service to be safe and further demonstrated good outcomes in procedures carried out. Despite improved efficiency in the study period the average LOS still falls outside the 4 hour target and a revision would be welcomed to reduce anxiety related to breaches in this group and encourage more uptake of PPS ketamine nationally","PeriodicalId":176391,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Would Changes to the 4 Hour Target Benefit Paediatric Procedural Sedation? A Service Review\",\"authors\":\"C. Stewart, P. Patel, N. Mediratta\",\"doi\":\"10.22259/2638-5007.0202002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aims: As Paediatric Emergency Departments (PED) become busier the number of children requiring painful procedures continues to increase. We aimed to evaluate a locally developed paediatric procedural sedations (PPS) service using ketamine for safety, efficiency and efficacy in the context of the national 4 hour operational target which is due to be revised this year in the UK Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients over 12 months suitable for PPS ketamine and collected data for demographics, time to patient identification, time to ketamine administration, procedural duration and time to recovery. We also documented procedure outcome, adverse events, consent, ketamine dosage and baseline physiological observations Results: From May 2017 to May 2018 ketamine PPS was performed on 36 patients with a mean age of 7 years (range 1.8 to 14.6 years). The most common procedure performed was manipulation of forearm fractures (n=21, 58%), followed by facial laceration repair (n=10, 28%). Total intravenous Ketamine dosages were; 1mg/kg (n=23, 64%) 1.5mg/kg (n=10, 28%) and 2mg/kg (n=3, 8%). Average time to referral to surgical speciality was 33 minutes which improved from 40 minutes (pre Sept) to 27 minutes (post Sept). Average time to ketamine administration was 168 minutes, improved from 185 minutes (pre Sept) to 155 minutes (post Sept). The average time taken to complete procedures, all under 20 minutes, also decreased from 19 minutes (pre Sept) to 10 minutes (post Sept) averaging 15 minutes overall. The recovery time was similar throughout the study period. The overall average length of stay (LOS) was 284 minutes, improved from 297 minutes (pre Sept) to 274 minutes (post Sept) figure 3. 20 (55%) of the 36 patients breached the 4 hour target. 10 (28%) patients were admitted, 9 for further neurovascular observations and only 1 where the outcome of a procedure was unsatisfactory. There were no seminal untoward incidents in our study. Vomiting occurred in 4, there was 1 drug error and one patient required brief airway manoeuvres for decreased oxygen saturations Conclusion: We have confirmed PPS ketamine service to be safe and further demonstrated good outcomes in procedures carried out. Despite improved efficiency in the study period the average LOS still falls outside the 4 hour target and a revision would be welcomed to reduce anxiety related to breaches in this group and encourage more uptake of PPS ketamine nationally\",\"PeriodicalId\":176391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22259/2638-5007.0202002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22259/2638-5007.0202002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:随着儿科急诊科(PED)变得越来越忙,需要痛苦手术的儿童人数继续增加。我们的目的是评估当地开发的使用氯胺酮的儿科程序镇静(PPS)服务的安全性、有效性和有效性,该服务将在今年英国修订的国家4小时操作目标的背景下进行。方法:我们招募了适合使用PPS氯胺酮的连续患者超过12个月,并收集了人口统计学、患者识别时间、氯胺酮给药时间、程序持续时间和恢复时间的数据。我们还记录了手术结果、不良事件、同意、氯胺酮剂量和基线生理观察结果。结果:2017年5月至2018年5月,36例患者接受氯胺酮PPS治疗,平均年龄为7岁(范围1.8至14.6岁)。最常见的手术是前臂骨折的操作(n=21, 58%),其次是面部撕裂伤修复(n=10, 28%)。静脉注射氯胺酮总剂量为;1毫克/公斤(64%)n = 23日1.5毫克/公斤(n = 10, 28%)和2毫克/公斤(n = 3, 8%)。转诊至外科专科的平均时间为33分钟,由9月前的40分钟缩短至9月后的27分钟。给予氯胺酮的平均时间为168分钟,由9月前的185分钟缩短至9月后的155分钟。完成所有程序所需的平均时间(均在20分钟以内)也从9月前的19分钟减少到10分钟(9月后),平均为15分钟。在整个研究期间,恢复时间相似。总体平均住院时间(LOS)为284分钟,从9月前的297分钟提高到9月后的274分钟(图3)。36例患者中有20例(55%)未达到4小时的目标。10例(28%)患者入院,9例为进一步的神经血管观察,只有1例手术结果不令人满意。在我们的研究中没有重大的不幸事件。4例患者出现呕吐,1例患者用药错误,1例患者因血氧饱和度降低需要短暂气道操作。结论:我们已经证实PPS氯胺酮服务是安全的,并进一步证明了手术的良好效果。尽管研究期间的效率有所提高,但平均LOS仍未达到4小时的目标,欢迎进行修订,以减少与该群体违规有关的焦虑,并鼓励在全国范围内更多地使用PPS氯胺酮
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Would Changes to the 4 Hour Target Benefit Paediatric Procedural Sedation? A Service Review
Aims: As Paediatric Emergency Departments (PED) become busier the number of children requiring painful procedures continues to increase. We aimed to evaluate a locally developed paediatric procedural sedations (PPS) service using ketamine for safety, efficiency and efficacy in the context of the national 4 hour operational target which is due to be revised this year in the UK Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients over 12 months suitable for PPS ketamine and collected data for demographics, time to patient identification, time to ketamine administration, procedural duration and time to recovery. We also documented procedure outcome, adverse events, consent, ketamine dosage and baseline physiological observations Results: From May 2017 to May 2018 ketamine PPS was performed on 36 patients with a mean age of 7 years (range 1.8 to 14.6 years). The most common procedure performed was manipulation of forearm fractures (n=21, 58%), followed by facial laceration repair (n=10, 28%). Total intravenous Ketamine dosages were; 1mg/kg (n=23, 64%) 1.5mg/kg (n=10, 28%) and 2mg/kg (n=3, 8%). Average time to referral to surgical speciality was 33 minutes which improved from 40 minutes (pre Sept) to 27 minutes (post Sept). Average time to ketamine administration was 168 minutes, improved from 185 minutes (pre Sept) to 155 minutes (post Sept). The average time taken to complete procedures, all under 20 minutes, also decreased from 19 minutes (pre Sept) to 10 minutes (post Sept) averaging 15 minutes overall. The recovery time was similar throughout the study period. The overall average length of stay (LOS) was 284 minutes, improved from 297 minutes (pre Sept) to 274 minutes (post Sept) figure 3. 20 (55%) of the 36 patients breached the 4 hour target. 10 (28%) patients were admitted, 9 for further neurovascular observations and only 1 where the outcome of a procedure was unsatisfactory. There were no seminal untoward incidents in our study. Vomiting occurred in 4, there was 1 drug error and one patient required brief airway manoeuvres for decreased oxygen saturations Conclusion: We have confirmed PPS ketamine service to be safe and further demonstrated good outcomes in procedures carried out. Despite improved efficiency in the study period the average LOS still falls outside the 4 hour target and a revision would be welcomed to reduce anxiety related to breaches in this group and encourage more uptake of PPS ketamine nationally
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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