Cargando…
Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescriptio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25215101 http://dx.doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.02.003 |
_version_ | 1782330263709155328 |
---|---|
author | Russell, W. Scott Farrar, Judith Rosen Nowak, Richard Hays, Daniel P. Schmitz, Natalie Wood, Joseph Miller, Judi |
author_facet | Russell, W. Scott Farrar, Judith Rosen Nowak, Richard Hays, Daniel P. Schmitz, Natalie Wood, Joseph Miller, Judi |
author_sort | Russell, W. Scott |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations. METHODS: This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs. RESULTS: Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9% reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide “real-world” data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4129832 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41298322014-09-11 Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice Russell, W. Scott Farrar, Judith Rosen Nowak, Richard Hays, Daniel P. Schmitz, Natalie Wood, Joseph Miller, Judi World J Emerg Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations. METHODS: This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs. RESULTS: Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9% reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide “real-world” data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended. Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC4129832/ /pubmed/25215101 http://dx.doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.02.003 Text en Copyright: © World Journal of Emergency Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Russell, W. Scott Farrar, Judith Rosen Nowak, Richard Hays, Daniel P. Schmitz, Natalie Wood, Joseph Miller, Judi Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice |
title | Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice |
title_full | Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice |
title_fullStr | Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice |
title_short | Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice |
title_sort | evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in us emergency departments: guidelines vs. practice |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129832/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25215101 http://dx.doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.02.003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT russellwscott evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice AT farrarjudithrosen evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice AT nowakrichard evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice AT haysdanielp evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice AT schmitznatalie evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice AT woodjoseph evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice AT millerjudi evaluatingthemanagementofanaphylaxisinusemergencydepartmentsguidelinesvspractice |