D Indig1, J Copeland, K M Conigrave. 1. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 22-32 King Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia. devon.indig@justicehealth.nsw.gov.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the strengths and limitations of different methods for detecting alcohol-related emergency department (ED) presentations and to compare the characteristics of patients who present to the ED with an alcohol-related presentation with ED patients who are found to be risky drinkers by a questionnaire. METHODS: Survey at two Sydney Australia ED over four weekends of 389 patients. Alcohol-related presentations were identified using a range of methods and were compared with presentations in ED patients who reported risky drinking using the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT). RESULTS: Overall, 20% of ED patients had alcohol-related presentations and 28% were identified as risky drinkers by AUDIT. Diagnostic codes detected only 7% of all alcohol-related ED presentations, compared with 34% detected by nursing triage text, 60% by medical record audits and 69% by self-report. Among risky drinkers, just over half (51%) were not attending for an alcohol-related reason, whereas among alcohol-related ED presentations, nearly a third (31%) were not identified as risky drinkers by AUDIT. CONCLUSIONS: Not all patients with an alcohol-related ED presentation usually drink at risky levels, nor do all risky drinkers present to the ED for an alcohol-related reason. The use of routinely recorded nursing triage text detects over a third of alcohol-related ED presentations with no additional burden on busy clinicians. As these data are potentially readily accessible, further research is needed to evaluate their validity for the detection of alcohol-related ED presentations.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the strengths and limitations of different methods for detecting alcohol-related emergency department (ED) presentations and to compare the characteristics of patients who present to the ED with an alcohol-related presentation with ED patients who are found to be risky drinkers by a questionnaire. METHODS: Survey at two Sydney Australia ED over four weekends of 389 patients. Alcohol-related presentations were identified using a range of methods and were compared with presentations in ED patients who reported risky drinking using the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT). RESULTS: Overall, 20% of ED patients had alcohol-related presentations and 28% were identified as risky drinkers by AUDIT. Diagnostic codes detected only 7% of all alcohol-related ED presentations, compared with 34% detected by nursing triage text, 60% by medical record audits and 69% by self-report. Among risky drinkers, just over half (51%) were not attending for an alcohol-related reason, whereas among alcohol-related ED presentations, nearly a third (31%) were not identified as risky drinkers by AUDIT. CONCLUSIONS: Not all patients with an alcohol-related ED presentation usually drink at risky levels, nor do all risky drinkers present to the ED for an alcohol-related reason. The use of routinely recorded nursing triage text detects over a third of alcohol-related ED presentations with no additional burden on busy clinicians. As these data are potentially readily accessible, further research is needed to evaluate their validity for the detection of alcohol-related ED presentations.