Scope and Influence of Electronic Health Record–Integrated Clinical Decision Support in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review
Brian W. Patterson, MD, MPHbpatter@medicine.wisc.edu
Michael S. Pulia, MD, MS, Shashank Ravi, MD, Peter L.T. Hoonakker, PhD, Ann Schoofs Hundt, PhD, Douglas Wiegmann, PhD, Emily J. Wirkus, MPH, Stephen Johnson, MLS, Pascale Carayon, PhD
As electronic health records evolve, integration of computerized clinical decision support offers the promise of sorting, collecting, and presenting this information to improve patient care. We conducted a systematic review to examine the scope and influence of electronic health record–integrated clinical decision support technologies implemented in the emergency department (ED).
A literature search was conducted in 4 databases from their inception through January 18, 2018: PubMed, Scopus, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Central. Studies were included if they examined the effect of a decision support intervention that was implemented in a comprehensive electronic health record in the ED setting. Standardized data collection forms were developed and used to abstract study information and assess risk of bias.
A total of 2,558 potential studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Of these, 42 met inclusion criteria. Common targets for clinical decision support intervention included medication and radiology ordering practices, as well as more comprehensive systems supporting diagnosis and treatment for specific disease entities. The majority of studies (83%) reported positive effects on outcomes studied. Most studies (76%) used a pre-post experimental design, with only 3 (7%) randomized controlled trials.
Numerous studies suggest that clinical decision support interventions are effective in changing physician practice with respect to process outcomes such as guideline adherence; however, many studies are small and poorly controlled. Future studies should consider the inclusion of more specific information in regard to design choices, attempt to improve on uncontrolled before-after designs, and focus on clinically relevant outcomes wherever possible.
Premedication With Midazolam or Haloperidol to Prevent Recovery Agitation in Adults Undergoing Procedural Sedation With Ketamine: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial
Presented at the 11th European Congress on Emergency Medicine, September 2017, Athens, Greece.
Narjes Akhlaghi, MD, Pooya Payandemehr, MDpayandemehr@sina.tums.ac.ir
We evaluate the effect of midazolam and haloperidol premedication for reducing ketamine-induced recovery agitation in adult patients undergoing procedural sedation. We also compare physician satisfaction and recovery time.
We randomized emergency department patients older than 18 years who needed procedural sedation to receive 1 of the following 3 interventions in double-blind fashion 5 minutes before receiving intravenous ketamine at 1 mg/kg: intravenous distilled water, intravenous midazolam at 0.05 mg/kg, or intravenous haloperidol at 5 mg. Our main study outcomes were recovery agitation as assessed by the maximum observed Pittsburgh Agitation Scale score and by the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score at 5, 15, and 30 minutes after ketamine administration. Our secondary outcomes were clinician satisfaction and recovery duration.
We enrolled 185 subjects. The maximum Pittsburgh Agitation Scale score was significantly less with midazolam compared with placebo (difference 3; 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 4.72) and with haloperidol compared with placebo (difference 3; 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 4.75), and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores at 5, 15, and 30 minutes trended lower with the active agents. Midazolam and haloperidol significantly delayed recovery but did not alter overall clinician satisfaction.
For adult procedural sedation, premedication with either midazolam 0.05 mg/kg or haloperidol 5 mg intravenously significantly reduces ketamine-induced recovery agitation while delaying recovery.