Compliance with poisons center referral advice and implications for toxicovigilance.

Martin Watts, John S Fountain, David Reith, Leo Schep
{"title":"Compliance with poisons center referral advice and implications for toxicovigilance.","authors":"Martin Watts,&nbsp;John S Fountain,&nbsp;David Reith,&nbsp;Leo Schep","doi":"10.1081/clt-200026972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When Poisons Information, or Poisons Control Centers (PCC) give directive advice in response to general public calls it is usually assumed that the advice will be followed, but it is difficult to measure the actual compliance of callers to a PCC. Epidemiological data regarding the incidence of poisoning incidents (Toxicovigilance) often utilizes reports of calls to a PCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective review of advice given to all callers to the New Zealand National Poisons Centre (NZNPC) from a defined area for the calendar year 2001. Callers to the NZNPC telephone hotlines who were advised to attend or not to attend the hospital Emergency Department (ED) were subsequently matched with actual ED visits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The compliance rate for those advised to attend the ED was 76.1%, whereas those advised not to attend had a compliance rate of 98.7%. The overall compliance rate was 94.1%. Of the patients presenting to the ED with a potential poisoning, only 10.2% were referred by the PCC. The callers referred by PCC and direct ED visitors appeared to differ in some respects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compliance with PCC telephone advice is similar to the compliance rates in many other health interventions. Comparisons between populations calling a PCC and those self-presenting to an ED show that PCC data may not reflect the true burden of poisoning to health care systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":17447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology","volume":"42 5","pages":"603-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1081/clt-200026972","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1081/clt-200026972","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Background: When Poisons Information, or Poisons Control Centers (PCC) give directive advice in response to general public calls it is usually assumed that the advice will be followed, but it is difficult to measure the actual compliance of callers to a PCC. Epidemiological data regarding the incidence of poisoning incidents (Toxicovigilance) often utilizes reports of calls to a PCC.

Methods: Retrospective review of advice given to all callers to the New Zealand National Poisons Centre (NZNPC) from a defined area for the calendar year 2001. Callers to the NZNPC telephone hotlines who were advised to attend or not to attend the hospital Emergency Department (ED) were subsequently matched with actual ED visits.

Results: The compliance rate for those advised to attend the ED was 76.1%, whereas those advised not to attend had a compliance rate of 98.7%. The overall compliance rate was 94.1%. Of the patients presenting to the ED with a potential poisoning, only 10.2% were referred by the PCC. The callers referred by PCC and direct ED visitors appeared to differ in some respects.

Conclusions: Compliance with PCC telephone advice is similar to the compliance rates in many other health interventions. Comparisons between populations calling a PCC and those self-presenting to an ED show that PCC data may not reflect the true burden of poisoning to health care systems.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
依从毒物中心转诊建议和对毒物警戒的影响。
背景:当毒物信息中心或毒物控制中心(PCC)对公众电话给出指示建议时,通常假设这些建议会被遵循,但很难衡量呼叫者对PCC的实际依从性。关于中毒事件发生率的流行病学数据(毒物警戒)通常利用呼叫PCC的报告。方法:回顾性审查2001年历年从指定地区向新西兰国家毒物中心(NZNPC)的所有来电者提供的建议。拨打新西兰全国人大热线电话的人被建议去或不去医院急诊科(ED),随后与实际的急诊科就诊相匹配。结果:建议去急诊的依从率为76.1%,建议不去急诊的依从率为98.7%。总体合规率为94.1%。在向急诊科提出潜在中毒的患者中,只有10.2%是由PCC转诊的。投诉投诉委员会和急诊科直接访客转介的来电者在某些方面似乎有所不同。结论:PCC电话咨询的依从率与许多其他健康干预措施的依从率相似。对呼叫PCC的人群和那些自行到急诊室就诊的人群的比较表明,PCC的数据可能不能反映中毒给卫生保健系统带来的真正负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparative toxicity of citalopram and the newer antidepressants after overdose. Evaluation of promotility agents to limit the gut bioavailability of extended-release acetaminophen. A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of oral and sublingual cyproheptadine. Accidental poisoning with autumn crocus. N-acetylcysteine for the treatment of clove oil-induced fulminant hepatic failure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1