HHE Emergency and critical care 2019 | Page 16

FIGURE 1 Baseline age and gender of patients Gender Number of patients Average age Minimum age Maximum age F 41 80.07 66 94 48 79.04 52 93 M 89 79.52 52 94 Grand total Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust Emergency Department between 1 June 2016 and 31 July 2016. All patients were included who had a formal diagnosis of PD at the time of presentation to the ED and took at least one medication directly used to treat PD. Patients who were discharged directly from the ED (that is, did not require an inpatient stay) were excluded. Patients with PD were determined by free text search through electronic records of all presentations between these dates. Key word searches for any presence of ‘Parkinsons’, ‘Parkinson’s’, ‘Parkinsonsism’ ,‘Sinemet’, ‘Madopar’, ‘Co-Beneldopa’, ‘Cobeneldopa’, ‘Co Beneldopa’, ‘Co-Careldopa’, ‘Cocareldopa’, Co Careldopa’, ‘Rotigotine’, ‘Stalevo’, ‘Amantadine’, ‘Rasagaline’ and ‘Selegeline’ FIGURE 2A Length of ED stay 16% 53% 19% 19% 0–4 hours 4–8 hours 8–12 hours 12 hours+ FIGURE 2B Patient co-morbidities 34% 16% 50% 1–2 3–4 5+ were included for further analysis. Cases identified were then reviewed by a research pharmacist and/or research ED clinician for inclusion under the aforementioned criteria. For all included cases, the total doses due within ED and the first 24 hours of inpatient admission were collected. This was determined against expert medicines reconciliation by inpatient pharmacists (which was regarded as gold standard). All ED documentation (including drug charts, temporary charts and electronic notes) were reviewed for documentation of medications being administered, delayed or omitted. A lack of documentation was regarded as an omission. Further data around deterioration of symptoms after admission to ED, whether APMs were prescribed in ED, and errors in prescribing APMs were also collected. Intervention by a pharmacist within the ED, defined by review and confirmation of primary drug history, supply (or prompted administration) of medication and ward handover was also collected for all patients. A single pharmacist was available during the service period, working 07:30-15:30 during weekdays. Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel 2010. Results A total of 177 patient records were returned from the key word search, 62 patients were excluded because they were either discharged directly from the ED or did not wait for treatment. A further 23 patients were excluded as records indicated they did not suffer from PD. Lastly, three patients were excluded because complete records were unavailable for analysis; this left a total of 89 patients who met the inclusion criteria and for whom records were available for analysis. Baseline characteristics (age and gender) were approximately similar in the analysis groups (Figure 1). A total of 84% of patients had at least three documented co-morbidities, with 50% having greater than five (Figure 2a and 2b). A total of 86.5% of patients were correctly identified within medical clerking in the ED as having PD, and taking oral therapy for the condition; 77.5% were actually prescribed these APMs within the department (Figure 3). Pharmacist intervention as outlined in the Methods section occurred in 19 of the 89 cases (21.3%). The mean numbers of doses required per patient were similar in both groups. Omitted doses Dose omissions and delays within the ED were considerably higher in patients who did not have an early pharmacist intervention (Figure 4). This 16 HHE 2019 | hospitalhealthcare.com