A brief assessment of capacity to consent instrument in acutely intoxicated emergency department patients

Surgery-Related Considerations in Treating People Who Use Cannabis: A Review

Importance

Cannabis use has experienced substantial growth. Many patients treated by otolaryngologists are using cannabis in various forms, often without the knowledge of the treating surgeon. These cannabinoid substances have various systemic effects, and it is critical for otolaryngologists to recognize how cannabis use may contribute to a patient's care.

Observations

Cannabis use has effects that contribute to every phase of a surgeon's care. Preoperative counseling for tapering use may prevent increased rates of adverse effects. Care with anesthesia must be observed due to increased rates of myocardial ischemia, higher tolerance to standard doses, and prolonged sedation. Although results of studies are mixed, there may be an association with cannabis use and postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Postoperative wound healing may be improved through the use of topical cannabinoids. Significant drug-drug interactions exist with cannabis, most notably with several common anticoagulant medications. Care should be exercised when managing medications for people who use cannabis. While many people who use cannabis consume it infrequently, a substantial population has developed cannabis use disorder, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality postoperatively. Screening for cannabis use disorder is important and can be done through short screening tools.

Conclusions and Relevance

Patients who use cannabis may require special attention regarding preoperative counseling and workup, intraoperative anesthesia, postoperative pain management, nausea, wound healing, and drug-drug interactions. As patient use continues to increase, otolaryngologists will find an increasing need to remain up to date on how cannabis use contributes to patient care.

Potential perioperative cardiovascular outcomes in cannabis/cannabinoid users. A call for caution

Background

Cannabis is one of the most widely used psychoactive substances. Its components act through several pathways, producing a myriad of side effects, of which cardiovascular events are the most life-threatening. However, only a limited number of studies address cannabis's perioperative impact on patients during noncardiac surgery.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases using relevant keyword combinations pertinent to the topic.

Results

Current evidence shows that cannabis use may cause several cardiovascular events, including abnormalities in cardiac rhythm, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular events. Additionally, cannabis interacts with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, decreasing their efficacy. Finally, the interplay of cannabis with inhalational and intravenous anesthetic agents may lead to adverse perioperative cardiovascular outcomes.

Conclusions

The use of cannabis can trigger cardiovascular events that may depend on factors such as the duration of consumption, the route of administration of the drug, and the dose consumed, which places these patients at risk of drug-drug interactions with anesthetic agents. However, large prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to further elucidate gaps in the body of knowledge regarding which patient population has a greater risk of perioperative complications after cannabis consumption.

ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear.

METHODS

In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

Pragmatic clinical trial design in emergency medicine: Study considerations and design types

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) focus on correlation between treatment and outcomes in real-world clinical practice, yet a guide highlighting key study considerations and design types for emergency medicine investigators pursuing this important study type is not available. Investigators conducting emergency department (ED)-based PCTs face multiple decisions within the planning phase to ensure robust and meaningful study findings. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool allows trialists to consider both pragmatic and explanatory components across nine domains, shaping the trial design to the purpose intended by the investigators. Aside from the PRECIS-2 tool domains, ED-based investigators conducting PCTs should also consider randomization techniques, human subjects concerns, and integration of trial components within the electronic health record. The authors additionally highlight the advantages, disadvantages, and rationale for the use of four common randomized study design types to be considered in PCTs: parallel, crossover, factorial, and stepped-wedge. With increasing emphasis on the conduct of PCTs, emergency medicine investigators will benefit from a rigorous approach to clinical trial design.

Inclusion of older adults and reporting of consent processes in randomized controlled trials in the emergency department: A scoping review

Objective

Conducting research in the emergency department (ED) is often complicated by patients' acute and chronic illnesses, which can adversely affect cognition and subsequently capacity to consent for research, especially in older adults. Validated screening tools to assess capacity to consent for research exist, but neither the frequency of use nor which ones are used for ED research are known.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using standard review techniques. Inclusion criteria included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from publication years 2014-2019 that (2) enrolled participants only in the ED, (3) included patients aged 65+ years, and (4) were fully published in English. Articles were sourced from Embase and screened using Covidence.

Results

From 3130 search results, 269 studies passed title/abstract and full text screening. Average of the mean or median ages was 55.7 years (SD 14.2). The mean number of study participants was 311.9 [range 8-10,807 participants]. A few (n = 13, 4.8%) waived or had exception from informed consent. Of the 256 studies requiring consent, a fourth (26.5%, n = 68) specifically excluded patients due to impaired capacity to consent. Only 11 (4.3%) documented a formal capacity screening tool and only 13 (5.1%) reported consent by legally authorized representative (LAR).

Conclusions

Most RCTs enrolling older adults in EDs did not report assessment of capacity to consent or use of LARs. This snapshot of informed consent procedures is potentially concerning and suggests that either research consent processes for older patients and/or reporting of consent processes require improvement.

Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

The optimal agent to treat acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) has not been determined. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol, ziprasidone, and lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind trial of ED patients with acute agitation requiring parenteral sedation. The study was conducted under exception from informed consent (21 CFR 50.24) from July 2004 to March 2005. Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of ziprasidone, 20 mg of ziprasidone, or 2 mg of lorazepam intramuscularly. We recorded Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS) scores, nasal end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂ ), and pulse oximetry (SpO₂ ) at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes as well as QTc durations and dysrhythmias. Respiratory depression was defined as a change in ETCO₂ consistent with respiratory depression or SpO₂  < 90%. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated (AMSS ≤ 0) at 15 minutes.

RESULTS

We enrolled 115 patients. Baseline AMSS scores were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, adequate sedation at 15 minutes, droperidol administration was effective in 16 of 25 (64%) patients, compared to seven of 28 (25%) for 10 mg of ziprasidone, 11 of 31 (35%) for 20 mg of ziprasidone, and nine of 31 (29%) for lorazepam. Pairwise comparisons revealed that droperidol was more effective that the other medications, with 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3% to 54%) more compared to 20 mg of ziprasidone and 33% (95% CI = 8% to 58%) more compared to lorazepam. There was no significant difference between groups in need of additional rescue sedation. Numerically, respiratory depression was lower with droperidol (3/25 [12%]) compared to 10 mg of ziprasidone (10/28 [36%]), 20 mg of ziprasidone (12/31 [39%]), or lorazepam (15/31 [48%]). One patient receiving 20 mg of ziprasidone required intubation to manage an acute subdural hematoma. No patients had ventricular dysrhythmias. QTc durations were similar in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol was more effective than lorazepam or either dose of ziprasidone for the treatment of acute agitation in the ED and caused fewer episodes of respiratory depression.

Identifying Clinical Research Priorities in Adult Pulmonary and Critical Care. NHLBI Working Group Report

Preventing, treating, and promoting recovery from critical illness due to pulmonary disease are foundational goals of the critical care community and the NHLBI. Decades of clinical research in acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute respiratory failure, pneumonia, and sepsis have yielded improvements in supportive care, which have translated into improved patient outcomes. Novel therapeutics have largely failed to translate from promising preclinical findings into improved patient outcomes in late-phase clinical trials. Recent advances in personalized medicine, "big data," causal inference using observational data, novel clinical trial designs, preclinical disease modeling, and understanding of recovery from acute illness promise to transform the methods of pulmonary and critical care clinical research. To assess the current state of, research priorities for, and future directions in adult pulmonary and critical care research, the NHLBI assembled a multidisciplinary working group of investigators. This working group identified recommendations for future research, including 1) focusing on understanding the clinical, physiological, and biological underpinnings of heterogeneity in syndromes, diseases, and treatment response with the goal of developing targeted, personalized interventions; 2) optimizing preclinical models by incorporating comorbidities, cointerventions, and organ support; 3) developing and applying novel clinical trial designs; and 4) advancing mechanistic understanding of injury and recovery to develop and test interventions targeted at achieving long-term improvements in the lives of patients and families. Specific areas of research are highlighted as especially promising for making advances in pneumonia, acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Confidentiality and Capacity

This article focuses on confidentiality and capacity issues affecting patients receiving care in the emergency department. The patient-physician relationship begins with presumed confidentiality. The article also clarifies instances where a physician may be required to break confidentiality for the safety of patients or others. This article then discusses risk management issues relevant to determining a patient's capacity to accept or decline medical care in the emergency department setting. Situations pertaining to refusal of care and discharges against medical advice are examined in detail, and best practices for mitigating risk in informed consent and barriers to consent are reviewed.

The Hennepin Ketamine Study Investigators' Reply

We read with interest the recent editorial, "The Hennepin Ketamine Study," by Dr. Samuel Stratton commenting on the research ethics, methodology, and the current public controversy surrounding this study.1 As researchers and investigators of this study, we strongly agree that prospective clinical research in the prehospital environment is necessary to advance the science of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and emergency medicine. We also agree that accomplishing this is challenging as the prehospital environment often encounters patient populations who cannot provide meaningful informed consent due to their emergent conditions. To ensure that fellow emergency medicine researchers understand the facts of our work so they may plan future studies, and to address some of the questions and concerns in Dr. Stratton's editorial, the lay press, and in social media,2 we would like to call attention to some inaccuracies in Dr. Stratton's editorial, and to the lay media stories on which it appears to be based.Ho JD, Cole JB, Klein LR, Olives TD, Driver BE, Moore JC, Nystrom PC, Arens AM, Simpson NS, Hick JL, Chavez RA, Lynch WL, Miner JR. The Hennepin Ketamine Study investigators' reply. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(2):111-113.

Assessing psychiatric safety in suicidal emergency department patients

We provide a review of the assessment of suicidal emergency department patients and includes a legal and ethical perspective. Screening tools and psychiatric consultation are important adjuncts to the ED evaluation of potentially suicidal patients. Suicide risk should be assessed, and if positive, an appropriate and safe disposition should be arranged. The aim of this article is to review these assessment tools and consider ethical issues, such as patient autonomy, accountability of the emergency physician, and consultant to Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) as well as confidentiality, privacy, and social issues.

How Emergency Physicians Approach Refusal of Observation after Naloxone Resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Patients who are resuscitated with naloxone frequently refuse a period of observation, even though they may be suffering from a variety of medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Emergency physicians (EPs) are then confronted with the challenge of how best to serve patients' interests while respecting autonomy.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to characterize how EPs think about this kind of dilemma and the strategies they use to resolve them.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 59 emergency physicians attending the American College of Emergency Physicians' Scientific Assembly in October 2018. Three case vignettes highlighting different clinical and ethical features served as prompts. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparative method to identify patterns of responses and derive key themes.

RESULTS

Across the vignettes, EPs demonstrated diverse approaches to observation, assessing decision-making capacity and encouraging compliance. Some EPs refused to comply with a patient's wishes even when they had determined a patient demonstrated capacity. Conversely, a few EPs were willing to allow patients to leave the emergency department (ED) without assessing capacity, or despite determining that the patient lacked capacity. Common reasons for complying with patients' demands were concerns about the patients' rights and concerns about the safety of staff. Most physicians interviewed reported no institutional guidelines or education on the topic, and many physicians expressed an interest in providing medication for addiction treatment in the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

EPs approach this clinical and ethical dilemma in widely divergent ways. Consensus about strategies for navigating patients' wishes relative to clinical concerns are needed to help EPs manage these challenging cases.

Sex-based differences in multidimensional clinical assessments of early-abstinence crack cocaine users

Crack cocaine use disorder (CUD) has been related to sex differences. This work aimed to compare the severity of drug use and the severity of other negative related outcomes in males and females with CUD. A total of 1344 inpatients (798 males and 546 females) with crack cocaine use disorder (CUD) were evaluated by a detailed multidimensional clinical assessment, including addiction severity and trauma exposure. Linear regression predicted higher drug use severity (β = 0.273, p < 0.001) and more problems in domains related to childcare issues (β = 0.321), criminal involvement (β = 0.108), work-related problems (β = 0.281) and social support impairments (β = 0.142) for females, all with p < 0.001. Alcohol problems were predicted to be higher in males (β = -0.206, P < 0.001). Females had higher rates of other mental disorders, particularly trauma and stress-related disorders (OR: 3.206, CI: 2.22, 4.61). Important sex differences also emerged in trauma history and HIV infection prevalence. CUD has a more severe clinical presentation among females facing early abstinence. Sex differences in the CUD course indicate the need for consideration of sex-specific interventions and research.

A review of the anesthetic implications of marijuana use

Marijuana, derived from plants of the genus Cannabis, is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level and remains a Drug Enforcement Agency Schedule 1 substance. Nevertheless, most states have passed less stringent legislation related to its use, ranging from decriminalization of possession to allowing medical or even recreational use, and some county and municipal law enforcement agencies have refrained from prosecuting personal possession and/or use even when statute would require such action. Therefore, as use of marijuana becomes more common in the larger population, more patients who are chronic and/or heavy users of marijuana present for surgical procedures, raising the question of best practices to care for these patients in the perioperative period. This review summarizes the known physiologic effects of marijuana in humans, discusses potential implications of marijuana use that the anesthesiologist should consider at each phase of the perioperative period, and outlines recommendations for future study.

Study Enrollment When "Preconsent" Is Utilized for a Randomized Clinical Trial of Two Treatments for Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute agitation in the emergency department (ED) represents a danger to both patients and their caregivers. Medication is often needed, and few high-quality randomized trials have evaluated the optimal drugs for this vulnerable population. In the United States, as of 2017, randomized trials of drugs typically cannot be conducted under Waiver of Consent (46 CFR 45.116), and Exception From Informed Consent trials (21 CFR 50.24) are limited to life-threatening conditions, are onerous, and require filing an investigational new drug application with the FDA. We sought to conduct a randomized double-dummy trial of inhaled loxapine versus intramuscular haloperidol + lorazepam for acute agitation in the ED by obtaining consent in advance ("preconsent") in patients at risk of future agitation, allowing study drug administration up to 3 years later if the patient presented with acute agitation.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to report the successful enrollment rate of patients preconsented at an earlier ED visit for this trial.

METHODS

This was an analysis of patients age 18 to 64 with bipolar I disorder or schizophrenia preconsented for enrollment in the trial (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02877108) conducted at a single urban academic center seeing approximately 60,000 patients per year. Eligible patients were assessed for capacity to consent by trained research associates, and informed consent was obtained at an ED visit for the possibility of administering drugs for agitation within the next 3 years. In the event the patient later presented to the ED and the attending physician deemed the patient required treatment for acute agitation, preconsent was confirmed and study drug would be administered.

RESULTS

Over 67 days, 1,461 patients were screened in the ED, 269 had bipolar I or schizophrenia, 194 of whom had a contraindication to inhaled loxapine leaving 75 eligible patients; preconsent was obtained in 43 patients. Four additional patients who had not preconsented were consented for the trial in real time (three by surrogate, one patient had capacity while agitated) resulting in a total of 47 consented patients. Of these 47, a total of 12 were later removed from the study: 10 patients had unrecognized exclusion criteria for inhaled loxapine, one preconsented patient contacted the investigators at a later date and asked to be removed, and one surrogate revoked consent immediately after providing it. Only two patients were successfully enrolled, neither by preconsent: one was enrolled via a surrogate the day of enrollment, and the other was mildly agitated and had capacity to consent. The remaining patient with a valid surrogate consent did not receive study medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of preconsent to enroll patients in a randomized trial of treatments for acute agitation in the ED requires substantial resources and may not be feasible.

Rescue Sedation When Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department With Intramuscular Antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Rapid treatment of agitation in the emergency department (ED) is critical to avoid injury to patients and providers. Treatment with intramuscular antipsychotics is often utilized, but there is a paucity of comparative effectiveness evidence available.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of droperidol, olanzapine, and haloperidol for treating agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients who received intramuscular medication to treat agitation. Patients were classified based on the initial antipsychotic they received. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of additional sedation administered (rescue medication) within 1 h. Secondary outcomes included rescue sedation for the entire encounter and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 15,918 patients included (median age 37 years, 75% male). Rescue rates at 1 h were: 547/4947 for droperidol (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-12%), 988/8825 olanzapine (11%, 95% CI 10-12%), and 390/2146 for haloperidol (18%, 95% CI 17-20%). Rescue rates for the entire ED encounter were: 832/4947 for droperidol (17%, 95% CI 16-18%), 1665/8825 for olanzapine (19%, 95% CI 18-20%), and 560/2146 for haloperidol (26%, 95% CI 24-28%). Adverse events were uncommon: intubation (49, 0.3%), akathisia (7, 0.04%), dystonia (5, 0.03%), respiratory arrest (1, 0.006%), and torsades de pointes (0), with no significant differences between drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine and droperidol lead to lower rates of rescue sedation at 1 h and overall, compared with haloperidol. There were no significant differences in major adverse events.

Evaluating Decision-Making Capacity

Abstract. The study identified factors that make an evaluation of decision-making capacity (DMC) difficult for clinicians in their daily work. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 24 healthcare professionals from Switzerland and subsequently thematically analyzed. The challenges they faced when evaluating DMC stemmed from three main concerns: patient characteristics that impede DMC evaluation; differing opinions and consequences of DMC evaluation; and familial and legal situations that complicate such evaluations. Physicians must be adequately trained to evaluate DMC as it is closely related to basic ethical principles of respect for patients’ autonomy and beneficence. Extensive training on DMC evaluation and the legal concept of capacity should be part of pre- and postgraduate education.