M. J. Lee, J. Cho, Haewon Jung, J. Park, Yun-Jeong Kim, J. Seo, Hanseok Chang, Si-Yeon Won
{"title":"分区域中心一级严重急性中毒分析毒理学服务模式","authors":"M. J. Lee, J. Cho, Haewon Jung, J. Park, Yun-Jeong Kim, J. Seo, Hanseok Chang, Si-Yeon Won","doi":"10.1080/24734306.2021.1913913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Acute poisoning may necessitate identification of the toxic agent; however, several acutely poisoned patients are treated with minimal laboratory assistance. We investigated whether focused reference to laboratory toxicology tests conducted during a pilot project for a subregional analytical toxicology service influences treatment decisions. Patients with acute poisoning presented to the level 1 regional emergency medical center from May 2018 to April 2019 were initially reviewed. Poison samples were referred to the subregional toxicological analytical service. In total, 253 substance samples were tested among 111 patients during the study. According to the reported drug levels, 3 (1.2%) samples contained lethal doses, 49 (19%) had toxic levels, and 28 (11%) contained detectable levels of a lethal toxin or pesticide. Disagreement between the clinical assessment and laboratory analyses was found for 62 patients (fair kappa = 0.24, 56%), and they often had lower Glasgow Coma Scale, higher severity scores, older age, and less likelihood of receiving gastrointestinal decontamination. The regional analytical toxicology services were helpful for diagnostic planning and therapeutic management of acute poisoning. For seriously poisoned patients with inconsistent histories, it is necessary to reevaluate the classic therapeutic process based on the medical history.","PeriodicalId":23139,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology communications","volume":"32 1","pages":"102 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analytical toxicology service model at the subregional center level for severe acute poisoning\",\"authors\":\"M. J. Lee, J. Cho, Haewon Jung, J. Park, Yun-Jeong Kim, J. Seo, Hanseok Chang, Si-Yeon Won\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24734306.2021.1913913\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Acute poisoning may necessitate identification of the toxic agent; however, several acutely poisoned patients are treated with minimal laboratory assistance. We investigated whether focused reference to laboratory toxicology tests conducted during a pilot project for a subregional analytical toxicology service influences treatment decisions. Patients with acute poisoning presented to the level 1 regional emergency medical center from May 2018 to April 2019 were initially reviewed. Poison samples were referred to the subregional toxicological analytical service. In total, 253 substance samples were tested among 111 patients during the study. According to the reported drug levels, 3 (1.2%) samples contained lethal doses, 49 (19%) had toxic levels, and 28 (11%) contained detectable levels of a lethal toxin or pesticide. Disagreement between the clinical assessment and laboratory analyses was found for 62 patients (fair kappa = 0.24, 56%), and they often had lower Glasgow Coma Scale, higher severity scores, older age, and less likelihood of receiving gastrointestinal decontamination. The regional analytical toxicology services were helpful for diagnostic planning and therapeutic management of acute poisoning. For seriously poisoned patients with inconsistent histories, it is necessary to reevaluate the classic therapeutic process based on the medical history.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toxicology communications\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"102 - 108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toxicology communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24734306.2021.1913913\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicology communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24734306.2021.1913913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analytical toxicology service model at the subregional center level for severe acute poisoning
Abstract Acute poisoning may necessitate identification of the toxic agent; however, several acutely poisoned patients are treated with minimal laboratory assistance. We investigated whether focused reference to laboratory toxicology tests conducted during a pilot project for a subregional analytical toxicology service influences treatment decisions. Patients with acute poisoning presented to the level 1 regional emergency medical center from May 2018 to April 2019 were initially reviewed. Poison samples were referred to the subregional toxicological analytical service. In total, 253 substance samples were tested among 111 patients during the study. According to the reported drug levels, 3 (1.2%) samples contained lethal doses, 49 (19%) had toxic levels, and 28 (11%) contained detectable levels of a lethal toxin or pesticide. Disagreement between the clinical assessment and laboratory analyses was found for 62 patients (fair kappa = 0.24, 56%), and they often had lower Glasgow Coma Scale, higher severity scores, older age, and less likelihood of receiving gastrointestinal decontamination. The regional analytical toxicology services were helpful for diagnostic planning and therapeutic management of acute poisoning. For seriously poisoned patients with inconsistent histories, it is necessary to reevaluate the classic therapeutic process based on the medical history.