Articles: hospital-emergency-service.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
The emergency department treatment of dyspepsia with antacids and oral lidocaine.
The treatment of dyspepsia in the emergency department often consists of antacid in combination with viscous lidocaine, even though the specific etiology of the pain is frequently unknown. The efficacy of lidocaine as a component of symptomatic therapy was evaluated in a randomized, patient-blinded protocol. Patients presenting to the ED with dyspeptic symptoms were randomized to receive 30 mL of antacid (Mylanta II), or 30 mL of antacid plus 15 mL of 2% viscous lidocaine (GI cocktail). ⋯ Assessment of pain relief using a five-point rating scale also indicated greater relief with GI cocktail therapy compared with antacid alone (P = .004). No adverse effects were noted with either treatment. We conclude that a single dose of antacid and viscous lidocaine provides a significantly greater degree of immediate pain relief than antacid alone in patients with dyspepsia.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
A comparison of wound irrigation solutions used in the emergency department.
The purpose of our study was to examine which of the wound irrigants commonly used in the emergency department is the most efficacious in reducing the risk of wound infection. Five hundred thirty-one patients were randomized into three groups. All patients had their wounds irrigated using a 20-mL syringe with a 20-gauge IV catheter. ⋯ This was not statistically significant. We conclude that there is not a significant difference in infection rates among sutured wounds irrigated with NS, PI, or SC. The cost of NS was the lowest of the three treatments in our ED.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
The effectiveness of an organized emergency department follow-up system.
Half the patients discharged home from our emergency department with the diagnoses of acute infection, cervicolumbar strain, bronchospasm, allergic reaction, headache, syncope, vaginal hemorrhage, and undiagnosed chest/abdominal pain were randomly assigned to receive a follow-up telephone call two to three days after their visit. Patients in the follow-up call group were telephoned by an ED nurse who questioned them about changes in their clinical status and clarified the aftercare and referral instructions received during the ED visit. Seven days after the visit, a questionnaire that rated patient satisfaction about six aspects of the ED visit was sent to those patients who had been contacted successfully (study group), and to a diagnosis-matched group of patients (control) who did not receive a follow-up call. ⋯ No difference was observed in questionnaire ratings between the female study and control groups. We conclude that male patients reached by a follow-up telephone call have a more positive perception of their ED visit. A follow-up call also can be useful for reinforcing aftercare instructions, follow-up referrals, and problem-patient identification.