因动物咬伤而到急诊室就诊的儿科患者狂犬病暴露后预防的适当性

J. Yoo, Jung-In Ko, W. Yeo, Taejin Park, S. K. Jung, J. Kwon
{"title":"因动物咬伤而到急诊室就诊的儿科患者狂犬病暴露后预防的适当性","authors":"J. Yoo, Jung-In Ko, W. Yeo, Taejin Park, S. K. Jung, J. Kwon","doi":"10.22470/pemj.2019.00129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To study the appropriateness of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (rPEP) for children with animal bite who visited the emergency department (ED). Methods: The study enrolled children younger than 18 years with animal bite who visited the National Medical Center ED between January 2014 and October 2017. The children’s electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Data for analysis included age, sex, body parts bitten by animals, species of animals, regions where animal bites occurred, history of recent antibiotics therapy and tetanus vaccination, and justification by the 2017 Guidelines for Rabies Control in Korea and implementation of rPEP. In children who underwent unjustified rPEP or did not undergo justified one, we recorded their guardians’ opinion for or against rPEP. Results: Of the 63 enrolled children, rPEP was justified for 38 children by the Korean guidelines. Of the 38 children, 35 actually underwent rPEP. Among the remaining 3 children, 2 did not undergo the prophylaxis as per the guardians’ requests. Among the 25 children whose rPEP was not justified, 8 underwent the prophylaxis. Of these 8 children, 7 did based on the guardians’ requests. Conclusion: In this study, inappropriate rPEP was usually affected by the guardians’ requests, regardless of the criteria for such prophylaxis. Thus, their requests for or against rPEP should be discussed with emergency physicians who are aware of the relevant criteria to prevent occurrence of rabies or unnecessary use of medical resources.","PeriodicalId":38199,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency medicine practice","volume":"58 1","pages":"23-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appropriateness of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis in pediatric patients visiting the emergency department due to animal bite\",\"authors\":\"J. Yoo, Jung-In Ko, W. Yeo, Taejin Park, S. K. Jung, J. Kwon\",\"doi\":\"10.22470/pemj.2019.00129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To study the appropriateness of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (rPEP) for children with animal bite who visited the emergency department (ED). Methods: The study enrolled children younger than 18 years with animal bite who visited the National Medical Center ED between January 2014 and October 2017. The children’s electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Data for analysis included age, sex, body parts bitten by animals, species of animals, regions where animal bites occurred, history of recent antibiotics therapy and tetanus vaccination, and justification by the 2017 Guidelines for Rabies Control in Korea and implementation of rPEP. In children who underwent unjustified rPEP or did not undergo justified one, we recorded their guardians’ opinion for or against rPEP. Results: Of the 63 enrolled children, rPEP was justified for 38 children by the Korean guidelines. Of the 38 children, 35 actually underwent rPEP. Among the remaining 3 children, 2 did not undergo the prophylaxis as per the guardians’ requests. Among the 25 children whose rPEP was not justified, 8 underwent the prophylaxis. Of these 8 children, 7 did based on the guardians’ requests. Conclusion: In this study, inappropriate rPEP was usually affected by the guardians’ requests, regardless of the criteria for such prophylaxis. Thus, their requests for or against rPEP should be discussed with emergency physicians who are aware of the relevant criteria to prevent occurrence of rabies or unnecessary use of medical resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric emergency medicine practice\",\"volume\":\"58 1\",\"pages\":\"23-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric emergency medicine practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22470/pemj.2019.00129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency medicine practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22470/pemj.2019.00129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨急诊动物咬伤儿童狂犬病暴露后预防措施的适宜性。方法:研究招募了2014年1月至2017年10月期间到国家医疗中心急诊就诊的18岁以下动物咬伤儿童。对儿童的电子医疗记录进行回顾性审查。分析数据包括年龄、性别、被动物咬伤的身体部位、动物种类、动物咬伤发生地区、近期抗生素治疗史和破伤风疫苗接种史、2017年《韩国狂犬病控制指南》的合理性和rPEP的实施情况。在接受了不合理的rPEP或没有接受合理的rPEP的儿童中,我们记录了他们的监护人支持或反对rPEP的意见。结果:在63名入组儿童中,38名儿童的rPEP符合韩国指南。在38名儿童中,35名接受了rPEP。在其余3名儿童中,2名没有按照监护人的要求接受预防。在25名rPEP不合理的儿童中,8名接受了预防。在这8个孩子中,有7个是根据监护人的要求做的。结论:在本研究中,不适当的rPEP通常受到监护人要求的影响,而不考虑预防标准。因此,他们的要求或反对rPEP应与了解相关标准的急诊医生讨论,以防止狂犬病的发生或不必要地使用医疗资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Appropriateness of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis in pediatric patients visiting the emergency department due to animal bite
Purpose: To study the appropriateness of rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (rPEP) for children with animal bite who visited the emergency department (ED). Methods: The study enrolled children younger than 18 years with animal bite who visited the National Medical Center ED between January 2014 and October 2017. The children’s electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Data for analysis included age, sex, body parts bitten by animals, species of animals, regions where animal bites occurred, history of recent antibiotics therapy and tetanus vaccination, and justification by the 2017 Guidelines for Rabies Control in Korea and implementation of rPEP. In children who underwent unjustified rPEP or did not undergo justified one, we recorded their guardians’ opinion for or against rPEP. Results: Of the 63 enrolled children, rPEP was justified for 38 children by the Korean guidelines. Of the 38 children, 35 actually underwent rPEP. Among the remaining 3 children, 2 did not undergo the prophylaxis as per the guardians’ requests. Among the 25 children whose rPEP was not justified, 8 underwent the prophylaxis. Of these 8 children, 7 did based on the guardians’ requests. Conclusion: In this study, inappropriate rPEP was usually affected by the guardians’ requests, regardless of the criteria for such prophylaxis. Thus, their requests for or against rPEP should be discussed with emergency physicians who are aware of the relevant criteria to prevent occurrence of rabies or unnecessary use of medical resources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric emergency medicine practice
Pediatric emergency medicine practice Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pediatric apophysitis management in the emergency department. Emergency department management of primary headache disorders in pediatric patients. Emergency department management of dental trauma: recommendations for improved outcomes in pediatric patients. Management of common pediatric ear complaints in the emergency department. Emergency department management of acute pediatric sickle cell disease complications.
×
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