Routine Laboratory Screening for Acetaminophen and Salicylate Ingestion in Preadmission Psychiatric Patients Is Unnecessary - 21/05/21
Abstract |
Study objective |
Screening preadmission psychiatric patients for acetaminophen or salicylate overdose is unnecessary in the absence of specific clinical concern for medication ingestion.
Methods |
This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 3 Veteran’s Administration emergency departments that medically evaluate patients prior to psychiatric admission. During the 10-year study period, these departments followed screening protocols that required the measurement of acetaminophen and salicylate levels on every patient prior to psychiatric admission. We examined all the acetaminophen and salicylate assays performed to see if any that were sent for screening led to a diagnosis of overdose and/or the administration of antidotal therapy.
Results |
A total of 33,439 combined acetaminophen and salicylate assays were sent on 10,482 unique patients over approximately 17,000 patient encounters. An estimated 29,000 assays were sent for screening purposes only—87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 85% to 89%) of salicylate assays and 85% (95% CI 83% to 87%) of acetaminophen assays. We identified 43 patients with elevated acetaminophen levels and 11 with elevated salicylate levels. Among these patients, only 6 in total had their levels drawn for screening purposes only, with no history of suspected ingestion; in all but 1 patient, the levels were only slightly above the reference range. None of the patients with elevated levels identified by screening had clinical toxicity or received antidotal therapy.
Conclusion |
Over a 10-year period, 3 Veteran’s Administration emergency departments performed psychiatric preadmission screening protocols with acetaminophen and salicylate assays approximately 17,000 times without diagnosing a single case of toxicity. Our results suggest that this practice is unnecessary and wasteful.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 605 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Lewis S. Nelson, MD. Specific detailed information about possible conflict of interest for individual editors is available at editors. |
|
Author contributions: AF conceived of the study. AF and KS designed the study. All authors participated in data collection. AF and KL drafted the manuscript and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. AF takes responsibility of the paper as a whole. |
|
All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org/). The authors report this article did not receive any outside funding or support. |
|
Presented at ACEP20 (virtual), October 26-29, 2020. |
|
Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide H2ZFMHS to Annals on this particular article. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 77 - N° 6
P. 604-612 - juin 2021 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?