Association between air pollution and emergency department visits for upper respiratory tract infection inLanzhou, China

Objective To evaluate how evidence-based our daily practice was. Design Retrospective study. Setting Emergency department of a public district hospital. Patients and Methods Between 1st August 2000 to 7th August 2000, 91 patients' records were chosen at random. A chief diagnosis was assigned for each patient. Corresponding treatments were reviewed by searching relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Each patient had only one chief diagnosis but could have multiple interventions for that diagnosis. Results Out of 91 records, 14 were discarded. All of them had not been given any intervention and 11 required admission. For the remaining 77 records, there were 38 subjects in medical, paediatric, or gynaecological specialties and 39 in surgical or orthopaedic specialties. Intervention(s) given for each subject were then searched electronically through our hospital Knowledge Gateway and the results were expressed as either EBM-positive or EBM-negative. “EBM-positive” interventions denoted a support by RCTs. “EBM-negative” interventions denoted an absence of any supportive RCTs. Each patient might have EBM-positive and/or EBM-negative interventions together if that patient received more than one treatment. There were 52 patients (52/77 = 68%) who had one of their interventions being RCT-supported. The majority were patients with (1) antipyretic use of paracetamol in upper respiratory tract infection, or (2) control of pain by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, dologesic and paracetamol. There were 25 patients (25/77 = 32%) who did not receive any RCT-supported interventions. Concurrently 53 patients out of 77 (69%) received EBM-negative interventions. The majority were patients with (1) the use of antibiotics, antitussives and antihistamines in upper respiratory tract infection, (2) antispasmodics in gastroenteritis or patients with nonspecific abdominal pain, and (3) the use of analgesic balm in minor orthopaedic complaints. Conclusion Sixty-eight percent of patients had EBM-positive interventions. Thirty-two percent of patients did not receive any EBM-positive intervention. It was quite encouraging as compared to studies in other specialties with similar design. Concurrently 69% of patients had also been given EBM-negative interventions. There were areas for improvement if we were to implement EBM practice in the emergency department.

Download Full-text

An Analysis of Unscheduled Return Visits to the Accident and Emergency Department of a General Public Hospital

Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1177/102490790301000304 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 153-161 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

CP Ng ◽

CH Chung

Keyword(s):

Emergency Department ◽

Tract Infection ◽

Respiratory Tract ◽

Respiratory Tract Infection ◽

Upper Respiratory Tract Infection ◽

Upper Respiratory Tract ◽

Related Factors ◽

Public Emergency ◽

Upper Respiratory ◽

Return Visits

Objectives To identify the reasons for unscheduled return visits to a public emergency department and possible strategies to reduce unscheduled return visits. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting A public emergency department in Hong Kong. Patients Unscheduled return visits within 48 hours in a three-month period from 14 January 2000 to 15 April 2000. Main outcome measures Patients' epidemiological characteristics, reasons, complaints and outcome of the unscheduled return visits. Results During the study period, 3.3% (1,060) of the attendance was unscheduled return visits within 48 hours as recorded in the computerized A&E Information System of the hospital. However, only 738 patients (70%) responded to the questionnaire. These 738 patients formed the study population for further analysis. Illness-related factors accounted for 87% of the total unscheduled return visits. Patient-related factors were responsible for about 10% of unscheduled return visits. Doctor-related factors accounted for about 3% of unscheduled return visits. There was only one system-related unscheduled return visit. For the outcome of return visits, about 76% (559) was discharged after the second consultation. About 5% (40) was referred to specialist clinics. Around 24% (179) of patients was admitted. Of those admitted, 78% (140) was illness-related, 13% (23) was patient-related and 9% (16) was doctor-related. Upper respiratory tract infection was the most frequent complaint (34%), followed by painful conditions (23%) and injuries (10%). For children at or below 10 years of age, upper respiratory tract infection (60%) and febrile illness (15%) were the most frequent complaints. Conclusions The study found that the reasons for return visits were multiple. These “unscheduled return visits” should not be automatically regarded as poor indicator of service. Better patient education, organized family practice system, upgrading of professional training and targeted audit are possible means to reduce unscheduled return visits.

Download Full-text